I'm wondering if the question
Why is there something rather than nothing?
is like the question
Why is there up rather than down?
In the latter, I think it becomes clear that the implicit intended meaning is:
Why is there up rather than only down?
Which is to suggest that in the original question, the asker really means
Why is there something rather than only nothing?
But it's obvious that up and down are dependent notions, just like something and nothing. So does the original question simply misunderstand the nature of something and nothing, is there information lost in the analogy, or is there something deeper here that I'm missing? Is it not self-evident that you couldn't possibly have only nothing, since it by definition depends on the notion of something? It feels trivial when we compare it to the intuitive notions of up and down: of course you have to have both, and couldn't have either at the exclusion of the other.
To be clear, I still feel deeply unsatisfied here, but I'm wondering why I do. What specifically is missing here, where is the mystery emerging from that makes the nagging question persist? How is it different than the analogy of up and down?