Is physics dependent on late night shopping?

Causality is mutual oppositioning and applies to everything, with the exception of material quantity.
And 'No'.
Your question is bollux.

Tom that's a good q. It has been asked whether other Universes have different sets of rules. But I don't think so, according to the principle that if there's no evidence for something then it probably doesn't exist

I think you're right to say so. Basically the question of causality is being stretched to its limit. Would you agree?

Don't know Tom 'cause don't understand the principle. Maybe you could summarize it by common words arranged in typical order

No, I don't think he could.

Just that late night shopping conventionally is unconnected to physics as a topic, and so to connect the two is unconventional: but unconventional to the greatest degree.

I do, Rog, if causality is really something that can be "stretched." However would you care to try...with many thanks

Once again, a little bit of philosophical terminology would clarify what you are talking about.
1. The term 'reductionism' is used for the position that every 'event' is based on physical mechanisms, which themselves are underpinned by 'universal laws of nature'. As far as human behavior is concerned this view is related to 'determinism' in which the concept of 'free will' is disputed.
2. This is opposed by philosophers who argue for 'transcendent' levels of description of 'events' in which human concerns focus attention on the nature of description of an event. Thus 'late night shopping' is an 'event' whose description must be in terms of psychological and social 'needs' , whose description cannot be reduced to the so called 'laws of physics'. A more usual example of irreducibility often given to first year psychology students is to consider how to meaningfully describe 'a dog begging for food' in reductionist terms.
The anti reductionist position has implications for neurophysiology, in which the term 'cognitive science' is disputed on the basis that 'consciousness' cannot be reduced to 'brain mechanisms'. It also has implications in field of AI (artificial intelligence)
3. The term 'causality' has no clear meaning in terms of philosophical analysis.

I imagine I am being reductionist just in asking the question, so I appreciate your reference of the term.
In essence, just to ask this sort of question is to describe the whole of reality - basically, reality itself gets negated or overruled by asking the question.
And that's the problem: the ability of the question requires the suspension of reality, because the scope of causality involved is just so damn great.

Nietzsche said there is no 'reality' independent of description, and Kant said that if there is an independent reality (noumena) we have no access to it because we always filter it through our perceptual systems.
In short, the questions you ask are using terminology like ' causality' and ' 'reality' which lose their meaning on analysis. The problem is whether we can ever get a vantage point, or "God' s Eye View " from which we can make sense of what we call ' 'reality'. Only meditators and religionists think this may be possible.

The act of late night shopping is synonymous with physics: the laws of physics enable the act to happen, yet is synonymous.
I suppose the real question is if that's a problem: duplication?

No, aspects of an act of 'late night shopping' may be describable in terms of the laws of physics (like why a coin falls to the floor) but usually those aspects add nothing to the concept of such shopping. Thus the word 'synonymous' is irrelevant to describing 'the reality of shopping'. You might as well argue that the current operation of a black hole billions of light years from here is 'synonymous' with my typing on this computer. Nothing is gained unless some explanatory import is carried by the word 'synonymous'.
Look up Occam's Razor, e.g...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

Is it not possible for all of an act of late night shopping to be applied to the laws of physics?

Try it ! Start with million dollar question 'the life process' !
...thats the whole point about the non-reductionist position.

I assume the non-reductionist position is that no explanation is needed for an event, or something of the sort. Is that correct?

It's about mobility and cash.

No. Such a position tries to investigate what is meant by the word 'explanation'. And this issue is not confined to philosophy; it is relevant to quantum physics (and quantum biology) which although 'successful' in prediction and control, cannot be 'understood' in traditional logical or causal terms.
You seem to be unaware of issues of 'scientific realism'or 'the status of mathematical models. These are sub-topics in epistemology(theories of knowledge).
I recommend "Sophie's World" as a good introductory text on these issues.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophie%27s_World

Thanks for the link.