I think if you adhere to cartesian dualism, then nothing exists, but considering I refute the theory in itself, I'd say things exist as they are and the state with which we exist subjectively poses certain confusions. We can prove things exist empircally, the keyboard I touch I can feel, etc. We rely on the senses we have, and you could say this is the only thing we have to prove things existing objectively. Then, you could perhaps refute that claim to an individual who has no bodily sensations at all, and say that this individual cannot affirm their existence at all, thus nothing is likely to exist objectively, other than what can be seen and heard, which in itself is kind of transparent and untrustworthy. Its hard to experience the world other than through myself subjectively, but I would say that things exist without me, and that things exist with you... I think the question just poses alot of semantic confusions, considering the word 'nothing' is associated to something so broad.