I kind of found the whole argument a little silly because he is playing with a false assumption from word go by assuming that nothing is something. Nothing is a tricky enough thing to wrap the mind around because we exist in a universe full of other things that exist and when we try to imagine 'nothing' we always end up imagining 'something' instead. That 'something' in the midst of 'nothing' is representative of duality is non-sense because it is assigning the same value to nothing as it does to 'something'.