Despite the fact, that nothing is 100% certain, you come up with a hypothesis and test them and verify or dismiss them. This is fundamentally different to religion, where believe and not proof is required.
And if you find, there are convincing hypothesis for the simulation theory, that can be scientifically tested, please go test them. If you are succesful, you will convince people. I am not saying it is impossible, I am saying I see no experiment, that can proof or disproof it. But I am open to be convinced with good arguments.
A lot of cosmology rests on far less stable ground than most might realize. So for instance the big bang was hypothesized by observing than everything is expanding. So if you roll back the tape then it seems obvious that everything must have been closer. Roll it way back and you get the basic foundation of the idea.
So one natural consequence of this explosion would be the cosmic microwave background radiation, the radiant heat left after the explosion. And we do observe that! Kind of... The thing is, it's nothing like what we expected. When we look at the CMB it's extremely homogeneous, everywhere. The reason this is a problem is because areas that are not causally connected (could not have reached each other at the speed of light, since the beginning of the universe) actually seem to be causally connected. We would expect to see a much more heterogeneous universe after a big bang.
So we resolved this by inventing cosmic inflation. [1] The idea is that somehow, shortly after the big bang, everything just sped up dramatically - well past the speed of light. And then it slowed down. And then started accelerating again in a fashion similar to what we currently observe. If you assume this, then we can get the big bang to match what we observe. But there's no causal mechanism or anything of the sort proposed. It's literally just retrofitting a hypothesis to avoid having it falsified, an ad hoc hypothesis. [2]
Inflation does fit what we see quite well, but it's untestable, unfalsifiable (especially given the ad-hoc nature of its own existence), and the predictions its offered to date were not particularly unexpected, given the homogeneity of the CMB.
Well, then you know more than me. And I have a STEM PhD.
" But I am open to be convinced with good arguments."
I told you. Stacking argument. There is a paper about it, I can't find it right now. And that something is not testable right now (Think Einstein Relativity that was for some years only a theory) or String Theory does not mean that it can't be tested in the future. The paper made a prediction when it can be tested.
Are you seriously arguing, that there is no such a thing as scientific proof?
I think I stated clearly the philosophical limitations of that "Despite the fact, that nothing is 100% certain" but that still makes proofs a scientific thing.
"Einstein Relativity that was for some years only a theory"
And Einsteins theory was indeed controversial at first, but it was a solid piece of work, that indeed turned out to be true by experiment. But people were convinced before that, because it explained things in a satisfying way.
And string theory is indeed just a theory. But one that aims to explain something. (I do not find it convincing btw. but it is a somewhat working model)
But the stacking argument ... what exactly is it explaining? And when can it be tested?
The difference between Science and Religion is not proof, because nothing is ever really proved in Science.
The difference is that for Science there are clear criteria for dis-proof.
A science fact is a fact not because we proved it but because we have repeatedly failed to disprove it.
So if there is an answer to the question what would it take for you to disbelieve in X. its Scientific if there is no answer it is religion
There is an answer to the question: what would it take for you to stop believing in the 1st law of thermodynamics? Everyone pretty much agrees what it would take and it has never happened.
So to thw case in point. What would it take for someone to disbileve that we are in a simulation. Answer Nothing because you can always assume a more complex simulation. Ergo it falls in the realm of religion.
Despite the fact, that nothing is 100% certain, you come up with a hypothesis and test them and verify or dismiss them. This is fundamentally different to religion, where believe and not proof is required.
And if you find, there are convincing hypothesis for the simulation theory, that can be scientifically tested, please go test them. If you are succesful, you will convince people. I am not saying it is impossible, I am saying I see no experiment, that can proof or disproof it. But I am open to be convinced with good arguments.