There is a real dichotomy between morality being either "objective and real" (this in metaethics is termed Moral Realism) or "invented delusions that can be ign

There is a real dichotomy between morality being either "objective and real" (this in metaethics is termed Moral Realism) or "invented delusions that can be ignored" (this is termed Moral Nonrealism). Inside Moral Nonrealism the invented opinions can be followed or ignored and doing either will (obviously) have consequences. But this is only Hypothetical Morality -- everything is contingent on what outcome one prefers. Even with the researchers' observation that certain codes lead to societal success, we would not be able to say those codes should be followed without first declaring 'whatever leads to societal success is what we should do' which as Hume shows, however attractive and easy, remains only an assumed human opinion. And indeed, as far as your observation of it being a fundamental structure and encoded in physics itself, Christians term this 'clear parallel' natural revelation and cite it as evidence for God.