Objective morality

[Jackalope]

If we consider the elegance of how physical reality fits together with all its constants and forces in perfect balance, harmony doesn’t seem to be that much of a stretch.

Does it?

It might appear to be the case, but the reality of it is that it is not - at least in terms of deep time. Two illustrations of this: 1) On a very large scale, the expansion of the universe is winning over the force of gravity in a very big way. 2) Main-sequence stars have the appearance of equilibrium, but that appearance ends as it's fuel is exhausted and the star dies. There are many, many other examples - but the fact remains that the physical "constants and forces" are NOT in "perfect balance", far from it.

That is, unless I'm completely missing what it is you're trying to convey. If you'd care to elaborate on the bolded portion above, I'm all ears.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Rules of logic don't have anything to do with consistency.

Are you saying that logic and reason have no abiding value? If they are not consistent doesn't that make the pursuit of knowledge futile?

The known physical laws are mostly consistent but fail in situations such as while approaching a singularity.

From this you conclude what? That the universe has no underlying order? That it is completely random? Does the validity of mathematics disappear in a black hole too? Or do even black holes have rules to live by.

No, even when considered as a whole, the entropy (disorder) within the universe is constantly increasing. That is another thing that contradicts your "integrated whole" idea.

I do not currently have the knowledge to affirm or deny this. I thought this was still an open question in astrophysics, whether the universe expands indefinitely or collapses back on itself. Either way the fact that the physical universe changes state does not undermine the idea that reality's structure (the truths of math, validity of logic, etc.) manifest in the physical is different from one place to another or under some conditions and not others. To assert otherwise is deny the possibility of acquiring knowledge.

[genkaus]

Are you saying that logic and reason have no abiding value? If they are not consistent doesn't that make the pursuit of knowledge futile?

No, I'm saying that their internal self-consistency is inconsequential to any consistency within reality itself. If reality becomes inconsistent with itself - as is shown to be the case with some quantum mechanical experiments - reason and logic would simply become inapplicable.

From this you conclude what? That the universe has no underlying order? That it is completely random? Does the validity of mathematics disappear in a black hole too? Or do even black holes have rules to live by.

No, I'm concluding that inconsistency in physical laws indicate that any underlying order being referred to here is not self-evident, not universally applicable and therefore cannot be considered axiomatically true.

I do not currently have the knowledge to affirm or deny this. I thought this was still an open question in astrophysics, whether the universe expands indefinitely or collapses back on itself. Either way the fact that the physical universe changes state does not undermine the idea that reality's structure (the truths of math, validity of logic, etc.) manifest in the physical is different from one place to another or under some conditions and not others. To assert otherwise is deny the possibility of acquiring knowledge.

Currently, that is what determines the limitations of our knowledge. The things you speak of - math, logic, reason etc. - are a reflection of the reality's structure. It is the change in reality's structure in different situations, such as at quantum levels or as with a singularity, that would cause inapplicability of these fields to those situations. What it does indicate is that any claim of consistency is clearly not self-evident.

Further, the only thing the increase in the chaotic state of the current universe is supposed to show is that the an axiomatic assumption of underlying structure that moves to all towards greater integrity is incorrect.

Basically, I'm not saying that there is or isn't and underlying "All" that is moves towards integrity, harmony and consistency. I'm saying that because of all this evidence to the contrary, this statement is not self-evident, therefore it cannot be axiomatic and therefore it'd have to be substantiated otherwise.

[Jackalope]

@Chad and genkaus: I've been enjoying this exchange as an observer, and have only jumped in to speak to this particular issue. I would like to see Chad clarify one point, after which I intend to resume lurking.

I do not currently have the knowledge to affirm or deny this. I thought this was still an open question in astrophysics, whether the universe expands indefinitely or collapses back on itself.

It is an open question, and the answer may be found in what is now highly theoretical (i.e. speculative) physics. However, the observational data we have does not appear to support the "big crunch" hypothesis. In any case, the assertion that spawned this tangent (see below) does not appear to align with what we do know. Perhaps my interpretation of your statement is different from what you intended.

Either way the fact that the physical universe changes state does not undermine the idea that reality's structure (the truths of math, validity of logic, etc.) manifest in the physical is different from one place to another or under some conditions and not others. To assert otherwise is deny the possibility of acquiring knowledge.

I believe this is a vastly different statement than the one that spawned this particular tangent, namely:

physical reality fits together with all its constants and forces in perfect balance

[Neo-Scholastic]

Cthulu, hopefully this reply addresses the apparent contradiction in how I presented things. When I was speaking about the balance of physcial constants and forces, I hoped to imply my confidence that a Theory of Everything* will be developed that coordinates the various constants and forces into a unified description of how the physical universe apparently works. It wasn't my intention to suggest that stars exploding and orbits decaying in one part of the universe somehow offsets star formation etc. elsewhere.

The known physical laws are mostly consistent but fail in situations such as while approaching a singularity.

True. The known physical laws are mental constructs that describe operations of the material universe. Even singularities have some kind of objective nature, oneness. What actually happens in the material world may indeed be quite different from what apparently happens. With respect to logic, the 'rules' of logic may also be mental constructs, but that doesn't mean the world isn't ultimately rational and understandable by means of logic. For example, it cannot both exist and not exist at the same time. Regardless of what the ground of reality actually is, as opposed to how we perceive it, I find it difficult to believe that reality is completely arbitrary and random. That would mean everything we know is unfounded.

No, even when considered as a whole, the entropy (disorder) within the universe is constantly increasing. That is another thing that contradicts your "integrated whole" idea.

The All includes the fullness of time and has within itself both the initial and final state of the physical universe. One possible objection is this. While the past is known and exists, the future doesn’t exist in any meaningful sense. This position assumes that the time only extends from this point backwards into the past. And yet every law of physics is reversible, meaning that just as future states can be calculated and predicted, we can also observe a current state and predict what the previous state was.

Perception of the arrow of time moving forward is just that, a perception, i.e. the past is a current memory and the future is an imagined past. The only thing we truly experience is now. I see two possibilities for the true nature of time as opposed to the apparent one. The first is a mystical ‘eternal moment’. The second is the ineffable simultaneous occurrence of all temporal relations within the whole. In either case, various parts (the Many) both arise and dissolve within the whole (the All). But the All itself neither arises nor dissolves. We have our existence between two aspects of the All: the singularity, perfect oneness devoid of substance, and the ‘final whimper’ or substance devoid of any form.

Since we have defined integrity to describe what has both wholeness and internal consistency that makes my use of the term ‘harmony redundant. The striving for integrity I refer to is the emergence of parts within the whole. In effect one property I attribute to the All is the ability of parts to self-organizing within it to form wholes. It also allows wholes to dissolve into parts. The moral choice is nested in this dynamic. Moral agents work to either live a complete life to its full potential or they accept incompleteness and pursue goals that lead to the dissolution of self.

But what about the destination of happiness? Where does that lie on the map? Does your route go through it? Is it possible that you might have to take a detour?

Happiness is a desired end. A virtuous life, a life of integrity, serves as a means to that end. I suspect the detour you imagine is related to trading current pleasures for better ones imagined in the future, or something to that effect. I imagine a detour on that path would be the like a runner that trains for a race. The pain and effort of exercise, pays off not only in terms of health but also in the satisfaction of achievement. I would assert that such endeavors exemplify the moral value of integrity apart from the pure pursuit of pleasure and comfort.

*Note: The TOE excludes any consideration of mental phenomena and is thus incomplete.

[genkaus]

True. The known physical laws are mental constructs that describe operations of the material universe. Even singularities have some kind of objective nature, oneness. What actually happens in the material world may indeed be quite different from what apparently happens. With respect to logic, the 'rules' of logic may also be mental constructs, but that doesn't mean the world isn't ultimately rational and understandable by means of logic. For example, it cannot both exist and not exist at the same time. Regardless of what the ground of reality actually is, as opposed to how we perceive it, I find it difficult to believe that reality is completely arbitrary and random. That would mean everything we know is unfounded.

That is exactly what is your foundational error here. I'm not saying that the world is completely arbitrary or random. I'm not saying whether or not it is completely integrated or consistent either. BUT, if this premise was axiomatic, it'd be self-evident. And if it was self-evident, then we wouldn't be able to find any evidence against it, because then they'd be the basis of our mental constructs as well. The point being made here is not regarding there being an actual "integrated All", the point here is that it does not have the axiomatic nature you are trying to assign to it.

The All includes the fullness of time and has within itself both the initial and final state of the physical universe. One possible objection is this. While the past is known and exists, the future doesn’t exist in any meaningful sense. This position assumes that the time only extends from this point backwards into the past. And yet every law of physics is reversible, meaning that just as future states can be calculated and predicted, we can also observe a current state and predict what the previous state was.

Perception of the arrow of time moving forward is just that, a perception, i.e. the past is a current memory and the future is an imagined past. The only thing we truly experience is now. I see two possibilities for the true nature of time as opposed to the apparent one. The first is a mystical ‘eternal moment’. The second is the ineffable simultaneous occurrence of all temporal relations within the whole. In either case, various parts (the Many) both arise and dissolve within the whole (the All). But the All itself neither arises nor dissolves. We have our existence between two aspects of the All: the singularity, perfect oneness devoid of substance, and the ‘final whimper’ or substance devoid of any form.

Since we have defined integrity to describe what has both wholeness and internal consistency that makes my use of the term ‘harmony redundant. The striving for integrity I refer to is the emergence of parts within the whole. In effect one property I attribute to the All is the ability of parts to self-organizing within it to form wholes. It also allows wholes to dissolve into parts. The moral choice is nested in this dynamic. Moral agents work to either live a complete life to its full potential or they accept incompleteness and pursue goals that lead to the dissolution of self.

You are not seeing the problem at all.

All these statements you make here about the "All" and its parts and whatever, are still based on assuming its existence. The assumption has not been vindicated. You may try all the mental gymnastics to try and figure out how to fit our current knowledge in your metaphysical premise, but all that is meaningless unless you first establish your assumption as something worth considering.

And simply claiming that its an axiom is not sufficient. You have to justify that it is axiomatic - that any denial of the "integrated All" would be self-refuting. Unless you do that, you are just throwing around big words and high sounding concepts that are actually meaningless.

Happiness is a desired end. A virtuous life, a life of integrity, serves as a means to that end. I suspect the detour you imagine is related to trading current pleasures for better ones imagined in the future, or something to that effect. I imagine a detour on that path would be the like a runner that trains for a race. The pain and effort of exercise, pays off not only in terms of health but also in the satisfaction of achievement. I would assert that such endeavors exemplify the moral value of integrity apart from the pure pursuit of pleasure and comfort.

The bolded statement is what I would like you to justify. As of now, you are simply asserting that leading an integrated and virtuous life (according to your morality) would lead to happiness. That assertion is meaningless unless you provide a justification.

[Neo-Scholastic]

The point being made here is not regarding there being an actual "integrated All", the point here is that it does not have the axiomatic nature you are trying to assign to it....statements you make here about the "All" ... are still based on assuming its existence. The assumption has not been vindicated....you have to justify that it is axiomatic...

Seriously, I do not see where the problem lies. Are you saying that you cannot make a group of everything and call it one thing? Everything that is real can be considered one thing, the sum total of everything real. The All is the whole of reality. Or what is the same, the All is reality's whole. What alternates have I not considered?
Integrity has two parts: wholeness (above) and internal consistency. I understand internal consistency to mean that inviolate relationships exist between the various parts that make up the whole. I consider logical relationships between real things to be inviolate. Logical relationships give us the ability to group things according to common features, etc. Reasoning would not be possible otherwise.

...you are simply asserting that leading an integrated and virtuous life (according to your morality) would lead to happiness. That assertion is meaningless unless you provide a justification.

As observed much ealier in this thread, any objective morality rests on deeper metaphysical issues. If my metaphysics is not valid. Then I need to see an altenate that is valid. Without a valid alternate there truly is no objective morality. If there is no objective morality then anything goes, no right, no wrong, nothing. Who here wants to take the position that no valid metaphysics is possible?

[genkaus]

Seriously, I do not see where the problem lies. Are you saying that you cannot make a group of everything and call it one thing? Everything that is real can be considered one thing, the sum total of everything real. The All is the whole of reality. Or what is the same, the All is reality's whole. What alternates have I not considered?

Actually, I can get behind this idea. As long as you keep in mind that we are making a group and considering it as one thing. We already have words for that. We call it "existence" or "reality" or "Universe". My point is that you should realize that this consideration of oneness does not imply anything about how it ought to be or how it should be or how it wants to be.

Integrity has two parts: wholeness (above) and internal consistency. I understand internal consistency to mean that inviolate relationships exist between the various parts that make up the whole. I consider logical relationships between real things to be inviolate. Logical relationships give us the ability to group things according to common features, etc. Reasoning would not be possible otherwise.

Actually I have no problem if you take All and consistency as two separate axioms. In this case, my problem comes from the use of the word "wholeness" in two different senses.

As indicated before, any wholeness comes into picture when we are considering it as a whole, i.e. we group it together and tag it with an identity. When checking for consistency, we are actually separating it into different parts, tagging each with its own identity and evaluating the relations between separate entities. In this case, they have an identity separate from the whole.

It is when you talk about the two axioms as one, i.e. talk about the integrated All, then we have an issue. Because then you are, at once, trying to consider it as a whole as well as parts with separate entities. And the reason this is a problem is that some attributes that are applicable to the whole, but not the parts, get misidentified as those of the parts. The premises you stated here are good enough - as they stand. The problem lies in their application.

Basically, your premises can be put forward a follows:
1. Everything that is real exists. (without making any indication to whether it exists as a whole or exists as parts)
2. Every existent exists consistently with the totality of existence.

I think you can go ahead on these premises.

As observed much ealier in this thread, any objective morality rests on deeper metaphysical issues.

Are you avoiding the question? For the purpose of this part of the debate, I've granted that your metaphysical position valid. And in accordance with that position, the purpose of your morality would be to guide everything towards greater consistency and harmony. The question here is - how does this lead to happiness?

If my metaphysics is not valid. Then I need to see an altenate that is valid. Without a valid alternate there truly is no objective morality. If there is no objective morality then anything goes, no right, no wrong, nothing. Who here wants to take the position that no valid metaphysics is possible?

Don't be like that. There are many other possible positions.
1. There is a valid metaphysics and from that we derive that all morality is subjective.
2. We have no and can have no knowledge of a valid metaphysical position and therefore any morality we have is just a matter of expediency. But it may still be objective.
3. There is no valid metaphysical position, but the morality was found carved in a rock and we consider it objective because we don't know of any mind upon which it depends.

There are all sorts of positions out there.

[Jackalope]

Cthulu, hopefully this reply addresses the apparent contradiction in how I presented things. When I was speaking about the balance of physcial constants and forces, I hoped to imply my confidence that a Theory of Everything* will be developed that coordinates the various constants and forces into a unified description of how the physical universe apparently works. It wasn't my intention to suggest that stars exploding and orbits decaying in one part of the universe somehow offsets star formation etc. elsewhere.

The above meaning was not clear from what you wrote, and I appreciate you taking the time to clarify it. I'm not really in agreement with you, but as this is a philosophy forum, I have no intention of derailing this discussion into a debate on astrophysics and cosmology.

[Neo-Scholastic]

...you should realize that this consideration of oneness does not imply anything about how it ought to be or how it should be or how it wants to be.

My use of 'wants' and 'striving' here is anthropromorphic out of convenience; although, I do in fact believe reality does express a kind of will. I cannot fully substanciate that belief at this time.

...my problem comes from the use of the word "wholeness" in two different senses...we are considering it as a whole..we group it together and tag it with an identity. When checking for consistency, we are actually separating it into different parts, tagging each with its own identity and evaluating the relations between separate entities...

Not sure if that exactly describes what I'm trying to do. It goes back to my assertions elsewhere about substance and form. For things that are truly real, we can recognize the form of a thing and we can recognize its substance. From that recognition we can make a mental contruct of the thing's form or substance. In reality; however, neither substance or form happen apart from each other. They are merely recognizable aspects of a complete thing. Form cannot be a part, nor can substance be a part. I'm saying this. The whole of reality is one thing. That one thing includes all of substance, as it really is, in a form that contains within it all possible true relationships. As you say, we compare recognizable aspects of parts to the recognizable aspects of other parts. I add the idea that a recognizable aspect of a part can be compared to a recognizable aspect of a whole. The perfect example of this idea is a fractal.

...Are you avoiding the question?...how does this lead to happiness?

Yes, I was avoiding the question. I wasn't clear that you gave me the go ahead. Thinking it through a bit more, I'm starting to see problems with thinking of integrity as the means to the end of happiness. I also need to avoid the mistake of connection happiness and integrity by definition. I think I had the idea backwards. Instead of increasing the happiness of the self, what I'm thinking is increasing the self that experieces happiness. As the self becomes more complete (integrated) the capacity for a fuller happiness increases. The moral standard which I propose is known by comparing features of a individual moral agent, as a part of reality, and recognizable features intrinsict to the whole. In this case I look to the whole of reality, the All, as the perfect example of what it means to be integrated. But does that make one more 'moral'? I must think more about that.

...Don't be like that...There are all sorts of positions out there.

The way I worded it does sound pissy, maybe because I was tired and too lazy to be more clear. I made a four-square matrix to show the options.
Not sure how to interpret this, but I think its a start.