If there is nothing to happen then nothing should happen hence if nothing is happening then something is happening if something is happening the nothing is not happening.
Just take example of nihilist who believes in nothing but he believes in nothing (here nothing is noun) isn't that paradoxical for nihilist to believe in nothing but that thing
If "nothing happens", it is the absence of something happening. "Nothing" is by definition not "something", it is the absence of something. Otherwise you can have this question with literally every sentence including "nothing". The set of things happening is empty, if "nothing happens".
This seems like you could relate it to the issue of the disconnect between time pictured as a dimension, and time relating to anything changing.
When an electron is confined in an atom, we picture it orbiting, but really it is a matter-wave probability distribution, like a kind of standing-wave. You could describe an isolated atom as both a something that is happening, and as having nothing happening (no interactions).
You are reifying 'nothing', when it us a relational term, connecting to a given context. Consider how the opposite of a white object could be a black object, or an invisible one. Nothing is the negation of logical categories, defined by context. 'I'm doing nothing' would involve many biological processes, but a specific contextually relevant negation of say, intentional acts or activities of certain kinds, as given by implicit cues.
'Happening' implies something interacting, changing. No-thing is by definition not in that category, it isn't a subject.
See this discussion for more on how we structure experience with conceptual units and narratives in ways that can mislead us: Is the idea of a causal chain physical (or even scientific)?
