Objective morality

[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.