I like the way the essay searches for similarities in nature. With that it hints at some overal concept from which these similarities may have come from.
I agree that there must at least exist some possibility for “nothing” to at all become “something”. However, I do not agree about your explanation for that possibility.
You started with an abstract state of neutrality for that “nothing” as your initial assumption. You end up with saying that everything is love. Thus, what you say is that neutrality equals love.
Now here comes a logical, ethical and moral problem, since love is not a state or form of neutrality. For example love does not love to hate, nor does it love lies and deception. Therefore, love is never neutral. Moreover, usually, people love their own lifes more than other's lifes and therefore they fear death and destruction for themselves.
In my opinion, loving literally everthing at some assumed endpoint of “gaining awareness of itself through polarized expressions of itself “ is the old esoteric concept of presuming that every animate thing is essentially a God in the becoming. I think that line of reasoning can be disproven logically by simply looking at the past and current state of our world.