If nothing can exist independently of anything else, then wouldn't that mean that there exists exactly one thing (particularly, a 'nothing') that actually exists in a way that is entirely independent of every other thing?
(sidenote: 'every other thing' includes more things than 'everything,' because 'everything' is only one 'thing,' and 'every other thing' must be at least 3 'things.')
5195 Live Kwotes, 741 Deleted Kwotes
Based on the GPL Kwotes Project