The subtraction argument aims to show that there is an empty world, in the sense of a possible world with no concrete objects. The thing that confuses me as someone not trained in philosophy is that an empty world seems to be itself something and therefore not nothing. It looks like the proponent of the subtraction argument is claiming that a possible world which is empty is something like a container that can be repopulated through addition. If so, aren't the proponents of the subtraction argument contradicting themselves by having an empty world (which is itself something) and then arguing that it is possible for there to be nothing?

Read another response about Existence