Yes we do. Top marks for effort, but what you're selling is of poor quality. It's not just that Bostrom's "Simulation Hypothesis" is a theory that cannot be verified, it is horse manure from start to finish. A 2025 study published in the Journal of Holography Applications in Physics used Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem to argue that certain physical behaviors (like material properties at changing temperatures) are provably non-algorithmic. Because physical reality requires non-algorithmic mathematics, it cannot be reproduced by a computer simulation. Any digital simulation must have a grid or pixel size (resolution limits). Yet, advanced experiments using laser interferometers like LIGO have measured space down to 1/10,000th the width of a proton, finding spacetime to be perfectly continuous, smooth, and isotropic. There are no digital "pixels" or structural artifacts at the fundamental layer of reality. The hypothesis assumes that consciousness is purely computational, that if you write enough code, the code becomes self-aware. This is heavily disputed. Philosophers use arguments like John Searle’s Chinese Room to show that processing data (syntax) is fundamentally different from actually understanding or experiencing reality (semantics and qualia). If consciousness cannot be programmed, the simulation hypothesis fails entirely. The argument that if you cut yourself the pain and blood could be digital simulations is completely insane, since it is you, who consciously feels the pain. And since it is impossible to program consciousness, the whole "ah a digital simulation" notion is laughable. Whilst it's understandable that people like de Grasse Tyson and Elon Musk, who are constantly in the media, use this theory as a party piece to amuse viewers and garner attention, people who are serious cannot entertain such nonsense. The fact that you seriously do, clearly, only shows your IQ is quite low, and you may be going slightly mad.
