This is where our language begins to fumble, I think.
Nothing, as is the sense of the lack of something, exists in many ways, though in the most fundamental way, its definition implies it is not existing. Though this play on words is entertaining, the space between two somethings is nothing in the literal sense, but is something in the logical sense or in the sense of oneness.
If the universe is the existence of moving constants, then the space between those moving constants is nothing. If the universe is simply entirely nothing because for something to exist, so too must nothing exist, lest the concept of a something could never be.
Let's specify a more precise meaning of the word "Nothing".
In the sense that "Nothing" is the absence of something, then I think that there is a place where there are no somethings. So "Nothing" in this sense exists as the space between things.
In the sense that "Nothing" is the void of all things, to include concepts and existence, then I believe that it is a paradox and an infinite loop, immeasurably so.
In the first definition, this is a nothing that you can see and measure. It might be the space between planets, or the distance between atoms. This is a measurable nothing that is something. It is the something we call nothing.
In the second definition, nothing is paradoxical. Nothing, not even space, time, or reality resides here. This wouldn't be a place that anything could actually go, not because traveling there is too difficult, but because going there would innately undermine the condition of it being what it is. Though that doesn't disprove its existence. It would suffice to say that this nothing cannot truly be, because if it did, then it would no longer be. But by virtue of it not being, it is. And so this is a paradox.