To be clear, I reject the simulation hypothesis (in its strongest form, what I call SH1, both the universe and ourselves are 100% simulated) for several reasons but the most important of which is what I call the too good to be true (tgtbt) problem. Simply put SH1 makes it way too easy to account for any aspect of how or why the universe is the way it is and how or why we are the way we are. Essentially it is too strong of a hypothesis. Name a problem and SH1 can give you an answer for it. Why is the speed of light constant? The simulators programmed the natural laws to be what they are. Why is their evil? The simulators wanted to test what was stronger, good or evil, so created the simulation as the ultimate battleground of these opposing philosophies, or the simulators gave us simulated free will via randomness in the simulation code and with free will evil can be a choice, or hundreds of other possible answers to every possible question you can ask. Quite possibly an infinite number of explanations or a number only limited by our own imaginations as storytellers.
If you want to read more about it some links to previous pieces.
The Problem Of Evolution In A Simulated Universe
How Can Beings Evolve By Natural Selection When Nothing Is Natural?
Some (A Lot) More Thoughts on The Simulation Hpothesis
My favorite Czech and intellectual heavyweight Martin Rezny got me thinking about the simulation hypothesis again. In…
Thinking About Constraints On Partially Simulated Universe Scenarios
If we can accept the possibility that the universe and/or ourselves may be partial simulations it is easy to be quickly…
We Have Finally Arrived In Our Partially Simulated Universe, Now What?
OK Smart Guy You Figured It All Out So What Are You Going To Do Next?
There is more where that came from. Lol!