In message http://www.astronomy.net/forums/god/messages/25963.shtml, Harv wrote (and he is an anonymous professional writer):
"There's a great deal of confusion on what is mathematics. Recently Helen posted a reference to a Jeeva Anandan paper that tried to phrase physics in fundamental symmetry groups (or symmetry fields as defined by Anandan) that are responsible for quantum probabilities and dynamical laws of the universe."
Response: There is a great deal of confusion on who Helen may be as well. Does it matter?
Well, it is interesting that Harv declines to discuss with Mike, but is willing to cite
"Helen," whose identity is as murky as Harv's own. If this were a case of class level, as Yanniru said, perhaps it would be understandable. Recently Yanniru wrote to Mike,"You are outclassed on this forum."
See where this goes. Yanniru says,"Right On!"
to Harv's essay, which includes such gems as,
1) "It is ridiculous in speaking of symmetries as 'existing' much in the same way that it is ridiculous in speaking of a moment 'existing'."
2) "...without a myth attached to our science, we cannot make sense of the meaning of that science."
Harv defines mathematics, science, and myth
in authoritative sounding ways. But it is more important to define fuzzy terms like "God"
than to define broad functional terms which refer to professional disciplines. Thus saith Me.
"The confusion comes in when people start abstracting for abstraction's sake, and then things get a whole lot more complicated."
I think it's pretty simple. You two have a very small mutual admiration society that blinds you to logic.