I've had the same thought about the starting from nothing rather than everything, but in an entirely different context. Axiomatic Set Theory is taught starting

I've had the same thought about the starting from nothing rather than everything, but in an entirely different context. Axiomatic Set Theory is taught starting with the empty set as an axiom and along with a small number of additional axioms, and from that you can build the integers and rationals and real numbers as well as an impressive hierarchy of different infinities. And one thing that's proved is there is no largest infinity, no set that contains all sets. There isn't an Everything set that's consistent with the Peano axioms. However, you could build the entire system starting with the Everything set and similarly modify all the axioms to be analagously subtractive rather than additive, deriving in some sense every inverse theorem, including that there is no empty set, no Nothing. When you do this you immediately at working with insane objects and intuition fails miserably in a way that building the other way doesn't.