Do you see errors? — ucarr

I see an argument wherein an argument is not needed. — 180 Proof

My argument is the self-evident argument to which you refer. I don't imagine myself presenting original thinking. I'm recognizing that the self-evident argument is all that's needed to answer the question.

Proposing the self-evident argument as the sufficient argument agrees with your statement: "...nothing negates or prevents existence." We're both saying that reality is fundamentally something; a world equal to nothing is impossible.

Not-nothing aka "something" is, so to speak, a ripple in nothing. As Frank Wilczek points out "Nothing is unstable" (e.g. quantum uncertainty), ergo there's always "something" (existence) too.

... a world equal to nothing is impossible

:up: I.e. nothing-ness (or total absence of possible worlds).

As Frank Wilczek points out "Nothing is unstable" (e.g. quantum uncertainty), ergo there's always "something" (existence) too. — 180 Proof

Perhaps the constant jiggling of the zero-point energy (that never reaches zero) is showing that 'Nothing' cannot be gotten to, and so it is ever up to something.