There is nothing dead about 0+0=0. Mathematically, zero can also equal any number of zeros added to themselves. This equation proves that nothing can have multiple aspects, and thus has the same property of contrast that somethingness exhibits. What does it mean to add zero to zero? What does it mean to "add" anything? Addition assumes the existence of contrast between objects. Zero can be added to itself, and thus, zero can be contrasted from itself. This contrast between zeros is matter. You claim a dead end, but you certainly haven't shown any.
I don't think it has been proven that space is "nothing." In fact you can go onto the web and read articles about the "structure of spacetime" and how the large scale structure of spacetime is different than the fine structure of spacetime, particularly in the context of loop quantum gravity. There is also much thought given, even in lower level physics courses to the overall topology of spacetime.
I don't think that analogizing space to the number 0 will necessarily lead to a valid conclusion any more than analogizing death to the number 0 would.
You are wasting your time. Your 0+0 =0 equation does not prove what you say it does. It is a mental construct, nothiong more. It says nothing about the real world and you have no warrant to claim that it does.
I will not enter into further correspondence on this topic.
If you define $$0$$ to represent nothing, then $$0+0+\ldots+0$$ still represents nothing, no matter how many zeros you add together. Simple mathematical logic. Your assumption that the universe must either have a primary cause or else have come from nothing is also without logical basis, because you're assuming causality as a fundamental property of existence, which is an impossible position to prove from basic logic alone.
You miss the point. Sure, 0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0 equals zero. The point is that there can be multiple zeros, which still add up to nothingness. In other words, nothingness can have multiple aspects or contrast, what we call matter, and still retain its essence as being nothingness in total.
On your second point, I don't believe the universe has a primary cause. However, most people think it does. My problem with the primary cause theory is that it doesn't explain what caused the primary cause. Therefore, I reject the primary cause theory, and instead, show that the universe is really only nothingness, which itself doesn't need a cause. Logically, everything but nothingness requires a cause. Every other explanation (as if there were many?) for the existence of the universe falls to the primary cause paradox, because only nothingness itself requires no primary cause. This is very logical thinking. Go ahead, name something besides nothingness itself, that does not require a primary cause?
No, if you define zero to represent nothingness, then each of the zeros in your sum is itself nothing, meaning it has no aspects whatsoever. Your definition, not mine.
Your something from nothing idea is just as paradoxical as the idea of a primary cause. You ask me to name something other than nothingness which doesn't require a primary cause, and my answer is "anything". Nothing in the universe requires a primary cause, and no fundamental logical principle requires that this be so. Causality is not a logical principle, it's an assumption, an axiom.
Again, you miss the point. The mathematical fact that zeros can be added together means that zeros have individual aspects. It's the addition part of the equation that is important. The addition shows that multiple zeros can exist - and yet still comprise nothingness on the whole. You simply don't like the fact that you can add two zeros together. Sorry, but you can do it. Ask a mathematician.
On your second point, you are simply claiming that the universe does not require a primary cause without explaining how that is possible. We'll, go ahead and explain it, then.
I am a mathematician, and as a mathematician I tell you that you can't in one breath say that zero represents nothingness, and then in the next breath say that zero has attributes. There is nothing to mathematically distinguish one zero from any other zero, therefore you are contradicting yourself.
I never said I had an explanation. It's up to you to prove that the universe must have a primary cause.
If there is a connection between space and matter, as evidenced by the effect matter has on gravity and gravity's effect on space by warping it, isn't it obvious that there is a connection between space and matter? In other words, isn't it obvious that there is connection between nothingness and somethingness? Isn't this connection proof positive that matter came from nothingness?
There is only one explanation for the existence of the universe that does not depend on a primary cause, and that is that the universe came from nothingness. This is the only explanation that does not beg the question, what caused the primary cause? Nothingness does not need a cause. It is the only thing that does not need a cause. It is the obvious answer to the existence of the universe.
The reason nothingness can appear to be something can be explained by analogy to a simple equation, i.e. 0+0=0. Nothingness as represented by "0" can also equate with 0+0, or "nothingness" + "nothingness". Nothingness has the mathematical ability to take an infinite variety of forms by simply repeating itself ad infinitum. For example, 0=0+0=0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0 et cetera. The answer to the existence of the universe is not found in asking the question, "how could something come from nothing?", but in understanding that something is nothing. This answer is simple and obvious.
If you define $$0$$ to represent nothing, then $$0+0+\ldots+0$$ still represents nothing, no matter how many zeros you add together. Simple mathematical logic. Your assumption that the universe must either have a primary cause or else have come from nothing is also without logical basis, because you're assuming causality as a fundamental property of existence, which is an impossible position to prove from basic logic alone. Causality is an assumption we make to help understand our world, that doesn't necessarily mean it was always that way, i.e. "before" the Big Bang.
Well, as a mathematician, you would know that zero does indeed represent nothingness. And you, of course, would also have to agree that 0+0=0. Therefore, zero can be added to itself, can it not? If zero can be added to itself, than there must be a mathematical distinction between two zeros in that each zero exists and can be added together. No?
Well, if you don't have an explanation for why the universe would exist that does not depend on a primary cause, then you don't have much to offer - do you?
No. If there is a zero, still means everything. As much as EVERYTHING MEANS ZERO...
''Zero can be added to itself ad infinitum and still amount to zero, because it has no attributes. Therefore there is no distinction between any two zeros.''
Not true. Ever heard of superpositioning?
$$|Perfect|$$.
Zero can be added to itself ad infinitum and still amount to zero, because it has no attributes. Therefore there is no distinction between any two zeros.
I don't need to add anything, that's your job. If you can't prove that the universe requires a primary cause, then you can't use the assumption of a primary cause as a basis for your arguments.
If there was no distinction between two zeros, you couldn't add them together, could you?
Second, I'm not claiming the universe had a primary cause. I am claiming the universe is nothingness, which doesn't need a primary cause. I am shooting down the other explanations for the existence of the universe (as if there were many?) on the basis that those explanations all require a primary cause, which makes those explanations subject to the primary cause paradox - which I find a distasteful and insurmountable objection.