Jump to content
The Corroboree

Micromegas

Members2
  • Content count

    1,139
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    15

Seller statistics

  • 0
  • 0
  • 0

1 Follower

About Micromegas

  • Rank
    Shaman's Apprentice

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Country
    North

Previous Fields

  • Climate or location
    North

Recent Profile Visitors

5,895 profile views
  1. Micromegas

    Pupping mid column

    Did you remove the bushes at the base of the plant? I hear you re: what I would have done 10 years ago. 5 years ago I had to get rid of so much cactus, 500m easy, maybe much more. I found in my conditions they all reach a limit of competition and really slow down growing (they slow down with age anyway I reckon, putting energy into flowers). Worse is that with them too close together their individual features disappear into a mass of cactus. These days except in special areas my rule is far enough apart the push mower, if not the ride on, can be got between them for the first 5-10 years of life, and I don't plant eucalyptus near them any more. That being said, too far apart and you lose the instant garden effect. I reckon the ideal is to thin out at five years, remove every second plant like they do in pine plantations.
  2. I'm pragmatic. I'd look into the emergence of Kali as part of the later developments of Hinduism and what historical function she serves, since she is not well attested in the earlier texts (Rig Veda) I believe and does not have an Indo-Iranian or Proto-Indo-European origin (i.e. she is specifically Indian when placed into a historical context). I think what you're describing has more to do with your own subjective feelings than any particular insight about Kali. This is not altogether to say generalizations about common human emotions are not apposite to a degree. No doubt Kali has a psychological function for Hindus. No doubt our subjective idiosyncrasies will find various gods to project onto in a globalized world. And no doubt those gods had a similar function in their historical context as well as a focus point for aspects of cognition. In the Hindu pantheon I would suggest there's a god for every emotion a person might encounter, with intricate relations between them as Glaucus indicates. So the question is, why Kali, and why now, for you? But understanding the historical context of Kali may help a great deal in working this out, is a "rationalistic" approach, but certainly takes a bit of work.
  3. Micromegas

    Acacia courtii giveaway

    holy cowabunga, nice acacias, yours look almost wild (in the superlative but also the wild-natural sense) niggles. Lovely weeping habit. @ notherner, I had a few out in the open like that, specimen trees. if you want to, you can cut off the lower branches and try to get it to grow up with single tall big trunk as a central feature. Maidenii and acuminata are good for this. But they look sweet as anyway.
  4. Micromegas

    How I got to where I am now

    Interesting story mate. I don't have much attention span for modern politics and can't digest videos, so I have probably missed some of your ideas. I am generally skeptical of conspiracy theories. I think your story of unions in Aus is important in a narrow window of time and in your personal life (harrowing story!), but for a political theory, your view of history is a bit too short. Horkheimer and Adorno's Dialectic of Enlightenment might give you a longer term idea of the trajectory and is integral to the Frankfurt school, but more generally indicates that we lost control through what was originally a turn toward individual liberty, and our needs were met by the proliferation of industrial mechanisms born out of the "myth of the enlightenment", to have control of all facets of life, of which both international organisations and fascism were outgrowths. As such, H & A problematise the rise of global organisations like the UN. So, I am not sure how your thoughts would be offensive to the Frankfurst school, this school seems pretty sympathetic to your views?: In light of the OHSW problems at your past work you might enjoy: "As they designate obsolete sections of the population for extermination, the administrations of totalitarian states are merely the executors of economic verdicts passed long ago. Members of other branches of the division of labor can look on with the indifference of people reading newspaper reports on clean-up operations at the scene of yesterday's catastrophe" p.171.
  5. Micromegas

    Lets talk metaphysics

    Northerner's post is very good (except for the part about no true shamans, which is completely false, culturally speaking). If you combine Northerner's quote, above, with sagis: "if reality is a concept, lets see people walking though a wall", you have essentially the foundation for Kant's "science of metaphysics" (Critique of Pure Reason, 1781), which is the key work of the Western metaphysical tradition, and basically concluded metaphysical knowledge is not possible and remains a matter of faith. If something cannot be given in sense experience ("if reality is a concept, lets see people walking though a wall"), it cannot be said to be objective. Metaphysical concepts represent incorrect use of physical concepts ("There's no definitive proof to show that any of the topics exist anywhere except in people's imaginations"). Indemonstrable metaphysical concepts are, e.g. god (theological), the beginning/end of the universe (cosmological), the soul (psychological), prelife/afterlife, even the idea that nature is systematic (since it is impossible to cognize the whole of this system). We need to think these things in some way (in Kant's term they are "regulative" of experience), but they remain outside of the possibility of objective cognition (where objective cognition is the "constitutive" use of concepts in sense experience). The eastern tradition is a bit different. Where the Western tradition says all you can know are objects of sense, the eastern tradition says all there really is are objects free of sense (empty of content), i.e. the sensory manifold is an illusion. I prefer the Western tradition for its internal deductive logic and positivist spin, but the eastern has some definite value.
  6. Micromegas

    Harvest Ethics

    I met bufo in arizona, quality stuff. The person I was with, his pool was full of them, naturally, like 50-60 toads in one backyard pool. It's a bit inconvenient to the toad, but you can get the poison from the glands without harming the toad to any great extent, so I am not sure why such a project would be necessary in this case (but maybe there's something I am unaware of). Better off directing energy toward the toad's actual threats, habitat destruction/land clearance, I was told of problems with recreational off-road driving that confuses them by mimicking thunderstorms (causing them to come out of the ground in a dry spell). Other drug extraction from nature, totally agree, may be having significant detrimental effects. The NAC prohibition on cultivated peyote is an interesting case. Ultimately the pressure is from elsewhere, large scale industrial mechanisms and so on (what i mean is, there should be heaps of peyote, right, if landscapes were intact), but in this modern context problems can arise with over-harvesting (aya tourism also an example as you say, also commercial products like cat's claw or the ridiculous international trade in endangered sedums from california), or with plants with a limited distribution (A. phlebophylla). Always good to mindful, think local, think global etc., several interrelated problems and each species has its own issues.
  7. Micromegas

    Lophophora Research List

    Hey Wile.E, I commend your efforts. I suspect this list is more or less endless, but two key authors I've come across are Weston La Barre and Barbara Myerhoff, a reference list would not be complete without them (e.g. Myerhoff: Peyote Hunt: The Sacred Journey of the Huichol Indians (1974); La Barre: The Peyote Cult, 1938 - one of the most important early works). Also, consider Schultes 'The Appeal of Peyote (Lophophora Williamsii) as a Medicine', 1938, to add to his others.
  8. Micromegas

    Dodonaea Viscosa Psycho-activity

    I did some research on this after I saw the same hop bushes I planted in my garden in Oz growing in the hills around Chavin: That link is broken I found this many years ago, 2013,14 maybe.
  9. Hey Sagi, it has been a good discussion. I'm definitely not "wrong" about quantum mechanics. That is a funny thing to say after this whole conversation about dogmatism. It's actually very hard to be "wrong" about QM, except in the mathematical sense. For example it is possible to carry out "wrong" Schrodinger equations to collapse the wave function, i.e. the maths can be wrong. But when it comes to interpretation on the consequences of QM, not even scientists agree. Einstein did not like it at all (“God does not play dice with the universe”). I think you probably need to read more before you dismiss the implications. Try out authors such as Dirac, Bohr, Heisenberg, Weinberg, who wrote good works on their development of aspects of quantum theory, and philosophers like Bitbol or Cassirer. There are three ways to interpret QM non-mathematically. I'm going to mash this up a bit because I am not an expert on QM and I haven't worked my way through the literature properly yet. (1) as a set of propositions and discoveries about nature than can be used in a literary way to construct metaphorical statements that build connections between microscopic and macroscopic behaviour. This is the usual approach and usually where things go "wrong" because microscopic behavior is applied the macrocosmos without a critical understanding of QM. Nevertheless, some of these metaphors do good work, e.g. because of the indeterminacy of the quantum state, QM reintroduces "free will" into nature where the classical system (Newtonian/Classical mechanics) articulates a completely deterministic universe. (2) as a demonstration of the structure and history of science and the limit (or advance) of its knowledge. Classical mechanics, which was "correct" until to about 1900, showed that, if you knew all the conditions of a state of an object, it is possible to determine all its past and future states (Newton's three laws). From this, science developed the concept of a fully deterministic universe ruled over by magnitude (measurement, quantity, force) and causality (cause and effect based on interacting magnitudes). Thus, classical mechanics can predict the past and future orbits of planets. But when QM entered the microcosmic realm, it didn't work this way. Classical mechanics suggested electrons would travel around nuclei in orbits, like planets around stars, that would be possible to predict, i.e. would be deterministic. Thus turned out not to be the case. In QM one can see either the position of a particle, or a wave of particles; or, one can find location/position or one can calculate momentum. One cannot have both! (which one could have in classical mechanics). To find the position of an electron travelling around a nucleus a photon (beam of light) is fired at the electron. As the light bounces back, the position of the orbiting electron is detected. If one bounces enough photons off enough electrons one gets a superposition of states where an electron might be in its path around the nucleus. This is the wave function, and it is solved by the "Schrodinger equation", whereby one calculates the probability of an electron being in a particular place. As the equation is executed, the wave function "collapses" into a single, known state, of position. This, of course, cancels out momentum. The double-slit experiment is probably the best for seeing this wave/particle duality problem. But there is more. When you shoot a photon at an electron, the mass of the photon relative to the electron is so high, that it moves the electron, so, even though you know the position of the electron, because the photon nudged it, by the time you have your results, you no longer know where the electron is! This the observer effect in QM where the measuring observer participates in the outcome of the experiment. This is not the case in classical mechanics (macroscopic world). But there is still more. As an electron orbits a nucleus it makes "transitions" between energy states, where it is either more or less closely bound to the nucleus (nearer or further from the nucleus). It jumps between orbits around the nucleus. Scientists are aware of this transition of the electrons because this is what causes radiation, of which the attempt to explains was the genesis of the quantum theory. As atoms decay, the loss of energy caused by electrons transitioning between states in their orbits causes radiation. Now, the jumps the electron makes in its transition is controlled by the "quantum of action", which is where "quantum mechanics" comes from. The quantum is Planck's constant: h = 6.62607015×10−34 Joules - very very small. This is the smallest amount of action that can be determined by scientific instrumentation, below the Planck length it is not possible to understand what is going on. The importance of this is that the transitions that the electrons make (or any other microscopic thing, photon etc.) cannot be strictly observed. Only their different states can be observed in integers of the planck length, never the transition between the states. That is, causality breaks down. We cannot see the path of the transition because is occurs in values smaller than planck's constant. It is a very bizarre thing not to be able to say if an object (electron) is going to transition, and how. This was the purpose of Schrodinger's cat... The cat is in a box with a atom and a hammer that will break a glass vial containing poison. If the atom decays, the emitting of radiation will trigger the hammer to release the gas to kill to the cat. The point is: science cannot say whether/when/where an atom will decay with certainty because the potential decay can only be confirmed on observation because the actual transition (from non-decay to decay) cannot be witnessed. So, until you open the box, you don't know if the cat is alive or dead, which means, until you work out if the atom has decayed, you can't say whether it will or won't decay, because the transition is hidden. There is absolutely nothing like this is classical mechanics. Thus Niels Bohr says "The quantum of action has become increasingly indispensable in the ordering of our experimental knowledge of the properties of atoms. At the same time, however, we have been forced step by step to forego a causal description of the behaviour of individual atoms in space and time, and to reckon with a free choice on the part of nature between various possibilities to which only probability considerations can be applied". So, the consequence to science is this: the deterministic classical universe that held since Newton shows not to be the fundamental property of nature, but rather there is an area of indeterminacy at the bottom of things, as well as a problematic interference of the observer with the results of experimentation. To overcome this, physicists use the principle of superposition and probability equations using the Schrondinger equation. This means you calculate all the probable locations where a particle might end up, using the quantum of action in the calculations, which makes the wave function. When you do the equation, the superpositions resolve into a single result, a position, which, as I have already said, is no longer where you know it was because your observation has distorted it. Now, you might still say this has no bearing on classical mechanics, but the general idea in science now is that classical mechanics (macroscopic world) is just a "special case" contained with the equations of QM. QM is used to do all sorts of practical things in the macroscopic world, like making atom bombs or working out the age of the universe and the earth. For example, the radioactive decay of uranium, calculated using quantum equations, is how we believe the earth to be four billion years old. Thus, Bohr again: The quantum theory is characterized by the acknowledgement of a fundamental limitation in the classical physical ideas when applied to atomic phenomena. The situation thus created is of a peculiar nature, since our interpretation of the experimental material rests essentially upon the classical concepts. Notwithstanding the difficulties which, hence, are involved in the formation of the quantum theory, it seems, as we shall see, that its essence may be expressed in the so-called quantum postulate, which attributes to any atomic process an essential discontinuity, or rather individuality, completely foreign to the classical theories and symbolized by Planck’s quantum of action [Heisenberg] remarks… that even in the case of macroscopic phenomena we may say, in a certain sense, that they are created by repeated observations [but]… in the[se] classical theories any succeeding observation permits a prediction of future events with ever-increasing accuracy, because it improves our knowledge of the initial state of the system. According to the quantum theory, just the impossibility of neglecting the interaction with the agency of measurement means that every observation introduces a new uncontrollable element. Indeed… the measurement of the positional co-ordinates of the particle [e.g. by shooting photons at an electron] is accompanied not only by a finite change in the dynamical variables [momentum, velocity], but also the fixation of its position means a complete rupture in the causal description of its dynamical behaviour [i.e. we can see where the particle is, but not how it got there], while the determination of its momentum always implies a gap in the knowledge of its spatial propagation [you cannot have position and momentum simultaneously]. Just this situation brings out most strikingly the complementary character of the description of atomic phenomena which appears as an inevitable consequence of the contrast between the quantum postulate and the distinction between object and agency of measurement, inherent in our very idea of observation. Now, point (3) is about what QM says about the structure of knowledge in general, and is an epistemic or philosophical problem. If you are in the Copenhagen group (Copenhagen Interpretation), like Niels Bohr, shit is weird. I am in this camp. If you are in the realist camp (and I suspect you are Sagi), like Steven Weinberg, then the results of QM still reflect a coordination between experimentation and the macroscopic world without too much problem (I am still following up on this point). Both of these might have valance, but I doubt either of them are "wrong". The philosophical aspect interests me most. In my post on January 3rd, I have already posted a comment on this and won't go into it any more. Interestingly, the Theory of Relativity is also incredible perplexing for philosophy. More so, I think, than QM. * To conclude, QM is relevant in a number of ways to our macroscopic world. (1) Because of its metaphorical import. (2) Because of its position in the history of science, of which classical mechanics is now the special case of quantum mechanics (i.e. elementary particle physics is based on QM); (3) both scientifically and philosophically the fact that the microscopic world does not behave like the macroscopic would is bizarre beyond belief. I find our inability to observe the transition of states at values smaller than the quantum of action to be fascinating; the quite obvious limit to our knowledge and what this says about cognition in general is also significant (no absolute knowledge). This limit to our knowledge continues to impose huge barriers to our understanding, e.g. the beginning of world is blocked to vision by the Planck epoch/era a period of time equivalent to the Planck constant, in which absolutely no one has the faintest idea what happened, suggesting all the major forces in the universe were combined (strong and weak electromagnetic force, gravity and ??) ruled over by some so far unspecified "quantum gravity". This point links to my earlier comments about the "antinomy" between the question of the beginning or infinity of the universe, and that however we answer this, it will be only a regulative statement. And finally there is the problem of observation (Schrodinger's cat), as well as the fact modern technology of great import is often based on quantum equations, such as atomic clocks which allow satellites to account for time dilation (given in the theory of relativity) so that the GPS system remains accurate (without the clocks keeping this precise time, GPS would be out by about 11km per day due to satellite time being fractionally slower than for an observer on earth); supercomputers and scientific instruments; radioactive decay dating and other chronometric dating applications. In actual fact Planck's constant allowed scientists to understand the composition of the the universe by allowing interpretation of spectroscopic data... this all bear fundamentally on macroscopic problems. Well, anyway, as Nobel Prize-winning physicist Richard Feynmann once said, "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics". And I don't, but I'm certain it has considerable implications, not only in the history of science but in understanding knowledge in general. If at the very bottom life is indeterminate and affected by our measurement of it, it is only a small step to argue that other "symbolic forms" can produce their own coherent concepts about phenomena and to see a structure of knowledge in which there is an inherent inability to obtain an absolute metaphysical cognition.
  10. Micromegas

    Trip sitting search terms

    Looks good Wile E, i'm over at ANU myself. I'm interested to see what you come up with here, and what sort of theoretical grounding you are using. I assume some sort of paper will result? Mostly I'm curious how "trip sitting" as represented on forums, which are largely individualistic and ad hoc, are defined and understood in comparison to closely sanctioned cultural techniques for mediating altered states that may have developed over centuries or much longer - there is a decidedly blurry line between them. Psychologically, this is a perplexing problem and the differential outcomes of participants, of interest, particularly when we start talking about intentional initiation of a "spiritual" states or use to resolve psychological issues. Good luck. Also, those tersheckiis are sweet!
  11. Micromegas

    Pupping mid column

    Hey HD. Maybe i'm confused. There were two plants from the same garden, roseii #1, roseii #2, that are not like the usual roseiis as far as I can tell. I'm going to say I was probably more correct in 2016 than I am now, and so it must be roseii #2. Same as one in the photo above, yes, that is the tip that broke off the auctioned one. Doesn't flower much, if at all, I can't remember it flowering, now you mention it. Halcyon Beast is awesome, super fat, and that is one of the more unusual cactus-modelling photos I've seen!
  12. Micromegas

    Trip sitting search terms

    good suggestions above. variations on "facilitate" are pretty popular. statements with the word "journey". sounds interesting. what type of organisation is the study connected with?
  13. Micromegas

    Pupping mid column

    Hey HD you're talking about the one I sent you a few years back, was it for a forum auction? That one the owner called Roseii #1. Maybe they are grown from Field's seed. Anyway that plant is a stunner, it's the better of the two roseiis from that SA garden, i've come to appreciate it more and more. It doesn't have the flower-bud-to-pup trait. Good to hear yours has some columns. Mine grows pretty slow so not much to prop. Here's the tip I planted after it fell down. Took a while to get going but now looks luminescent in the shade.
  14. Micromegas

    Pupping mid column

    Trichos will start to do this when older, but it is not common for the popular aust clones in my experience until quite advanced (with a few exceptions), they tend to get progressively broader by pupping low off of outside branches, forming a densely packed mass like halycon says. I grew a bunch of seeds from around chavin, Peru, these show mid-column pupping as a trait at an early age, it was surprising. In your case, however, I suspect the plant is seeking light, the lower areoles are too shaded and crowded to produce the hormones for pupping (my guess). If you grow dense bushes at the base of trichos, they will pup higher up, same with any plant really. Shade has big impact on overall plant form, often positive. I have some plants with very interesting shapes because of this, where they pupped 6ft off the ground (PC). When the bushes are removed, the plant starts pupping from the bottom again. In very dense trichos, the lower branches can shade the interior of the plant, so the main columns in the centre, with time will pup higher up. Nice healthy plants. Edit: I have some plants, a Roseii 2 so-called by its owner, that often aborts flower buds and turns them into branches right at the top. it's a consistent trait. I have to cut the buggers off as it's not a stable situation to have branches that high.
  15. Micromegas

    Help with i.d

    aeonium arboreum. probably grown in lots of shade, so does not have the compact rosette typical of these plants. There's a chance it's the red variety but I suspect just from shade.
×