Is "zero" greater than one?

[3bob]

Is "zero" greater than one?

 

or: one is a lot but is it enough?

Edited May 4, 2013 by 3bob

[Seeker of Wisdom]

Can anything contain more than empty space does?

Edited May 4, 2013 by Seeker of the Self

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

"what is greater: content or container?"


Ridiculous question, really!

[Marblehead]

Zero has full potential. One is fixed. I would rather have potential.

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

to "have potential" is to do nothing.
to "secure potential" is to act.

[Tom Lin]

Zero has infinite potential therefore it is infinitely expansive. Also one comes after zero. Therefore zero is greater than one.

 

Are humans greater than the creator? No because the human came after the creator, or out of it. therefore the creator is greater than the human.

[Marblehead]

to "have potential" is to do nothing.

to "secure potential" is to act.

That's a pretty deep thought coming from an Ant.

[Marblehead]

Zero has infinite potential therefore it is infinitely expansive. Also one comes after zero. Therefore zero is greater than one.

 

Are humans greater than the creator? No because the human came after the creator, or out of it. therefore the creator is greater than the human.

Hehehe. Nice talking with another believer. But if the word were "creation" instead of "creator" I would be able to totally agree.

[3bob]

The "mind" can know one but not zero, who here would give up mind for zero?

[ChiDragon]

Hehehe. Nice talking with another believer. But if the word were "creation" instead of "creator" I would be able to totally agree.

 

If it was said that the "creation of the creator" I would be able to totally agree.......

[ChiDragon]

The "mind" can know one but not zero, who here would give up mind for zero?

 

When the mind is in the "State of Serenity" which is "emptiness". Emptiness is "at the Zero state".......

Edited May 4, 2013 by ChiDragon

[thelerner]

Its so much work to write a zero, you have to go up, then loop, then down, then loop. One- is a fast slash. I, as an efficient and lazy person vote for 1.

 

After all it is number One for a reason, all others are 2nd or less <or more depending on how you look at it.

 

 

My spiritual goal is to become one with 1,

then the two of us will happily ever after.

Edited May 4, 2013 by thelerner

[rene]

Is "zero" greater than one?

 

As each are undefined without the other,

how could either of them be "greater"?

[ChiDragon]

Tao is Zero(Wu) to begin with. Then, Tao engenders One(You) .

Edited May 4, 2013 by ChiDragon

[Marblehead]

The "mind" can know one but not zero, who here would give up mind for zero?

No, no, no. Your association is faulty. The question should be: Who would give up one for zero? For me, it would depend on what that one was. If it was one wife who made my life miserable I would gladly give up one for none (zero). And then zero would be greater than one.

[Marblehead]

Its so much work to write a zero, you have to go up, then loop, then down, then loop. One- is a fast slash. I, as an efficient and lazy person vote for 1.

No, no, no to you too. To have zero you need make no mark, no writing. Nothing. Zero.

[Marblehead]

Tao is Zero(Wu) to begin with. Then, Tao engenders One(You) .

See?

 

Primal is greater.

[Stosh]

When I was a little kid , I wanted to know what was greater-a lion or a tiger

I found out tigers often get larger

And I thought I knew something

One day someone pointed out that male lions were born brawlers

The mane helped protect as well as intimidate so the lion was greater

I thought I knew something

One day someone told me

A lion is a lion and a tiger is a tiger

Then I knew something true

 

[3bob]

more ideas: all of "mind" or one is thing, zero is no-thing.

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

That's a pretty deep thought coming from an Ant.

for every one human there are a trillion ants.

[3bob]

Those sci-fi movies about giant ants were fake after all, see explanation below:

 

"if you were to scale up an insect, in proportion to its current size, its surface area to volume ratio would be drastically altered. An ant scaled up to human size would still be trying to use spiracles to breath, but their surface area would no longer be sufficient to obtain enough oxygen from the air, and the ant would suffocate. Even if you could deal with this problem, the ant’s legs would have suffered from the scaling issue too. The strength of a leg is proportional to its cross-sectional area, and the load it must carry is proportional the mass of the animal. As size increases, the cross-sectional area would increase in proportion to length², but the load would increase with length³, and the legs would very quickly be too weak to support the animal"

 

Sorry for the letdown. Btw we also don't need the little ant like guys from Mars that ate Beau Bridges in "Sand Kings", which doesn't mean I'm against a Mars mission as long as what happens on Mars stays on Mars.

[zanshin]

All things came from the One and all things are One.

 

1>0

[manitou]

Zero could be described as the latency of the Dao. One could be the first manifestation. Maybe quantification isn't the best means by which to measure the difference.

[zanshin]

Is it quantification or qualification? Our species' greediness even built into our language, greater is more and is also a synonym for better. Why are things that are high "superior" and things that are low "inferior."? People judge numbers and have lucky numbers.

[manitou]

Is it quantification or qualification? Our species' greediness even built into our language, greater is more and is also a synonym for better. Why are things that are high "superior" and things that are low "inferior."? People judge numbers and have lucky numbers.

 

 

That's part of the illusion of existence,I guess. You're right - it seems to be built into our DNA that greater is better; yet I'll bet that if we all had an electron microscope and looked at the world of smallness, it would be equally as amazing as our world of largeness. You could throw time into this equation as well, realizing that time is an illusion; if time were removed, all things would be squished together as the One anyway, and large or small wouldn't make nary a difference at all.