It seems to me the "simulation" hypothesis is similar to the God hypothesis in that it postulates a higher being who created us. Most scientists would agree that there is no evidence to support a God hypothesis, and for that reason it is not further investigated. Would not the same argument effectively remove the simulation hypothesis from further study?,(reply>), @THOUGHT PoLEASE! That is a great caveat, and I love Bostrom's paper on the Great Filter.,(reply>), @Ralph Dratman The "simulation hypothesis" DOES NOT hypothesize that we ARE a simulation.  It presents a philosophical "trilemma," in which Bostrom contends that, based on what we can observe and discern about what appears to be our reality, ONE of three things must be true -- only one of which is that our reality is likely a simulation.,(reply>), @Dash X But there is still no evidence to support the simulation hypothesis, right? <br>By evidence I mean information from the outside world.,(reply>), No.  Because the simulation hypothesis does NOT claim our reality IS a simulation.,(reply>), Why would we stop studying or thinking about something simply because we can't prove it? If we didn't wonder about what we don't yet understand, none of what we know now in the medical field would've ever been possible. Quite frankly, people would die far more often. Many of our so-called "miracles" came to fruition in a "laboratory". ✨