In his paper Contingency, John Heil asks us to imagine a possible world where there are no objects whatsoever, quickly, if there are no objects, then in what sense is this a world?
I'm assuming Heil takes the world to be a sum of everything that exists. I agree that it would be infelicitous to say that there is such a possible world. But this doesn't seem right to me, surely the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" asks us to consider the very possibility that no objects exist, and that would entail that no possibilities, and thus no actual or possible world existing could be a live possibility.
Thoughts?