you don’t live in a simulation
a simulation is not real. it is possible to tell that a simulation cannot be real by nature of the fact that if it were real, it would be “reality” and not “a simulation”. the difference between reality and a fantasy is that the latter can be meaningfully distinguished from the former. actors in a play behave as characters in a story, but after the story is told, they can go home. this is what makes it a “play” rather than something that actually happened.
if something created reality, then it must exist outside of it. it is not real, by definition! if one accepts something as real which by definition cannot be real, an inherent contradiction, then by the principle of explosion, they cannot be reasoned with whatsoever: by their logic, anything may be true or false. this is a very dangerous thing.
this may strike you as an unfair argument. indeed, I concede that people who believe to be simulated do often mean something else when they say “reality is a simulation.” many people express that the universe per se is a simulation or created by a higher being, with the only logical conclusion being that reality is something which the creator too exists inside. this is not inherently contradictory, no.
yes, it is quite possible to iron out the contradictions in such beliefs. not that people care about them in the first place: as the contradictions are pointed out, the goalposts will be moved indefinitely because there is no concrete idea to actually interrogate; the specific details are whatever is convenient.
but ignoring this and taking the ideas at face value, they are still unfalsifiable. an unfalsifiable belief cannot be evidenced and thus cannot be arrived at through evidence. what is thinking to be deemed which arrives at conclusions which are not necessarily contradictory to evidence but neither are supported by it? this is biased thinking.
bias is the process by which a person sees themselves or what is important to them in the patterns around them. a techbro is wont to see the world as technology. a religious person is wont to see the world as a creation of/governed by their dieties. a conspiracy theorist/conservative/fascist is wont to see the world as governed by a secret evil cabal (usually the jews).
someone who believes that everyone around them is an actor planted by some powerful entity is quite reasonably not typically believed, but someone who believes that everything around them is a computer simulation planted by some powerful entity is hailed as profound and intellectual. it is purely a matter of æsthetics, of framing.
conclusions which maximally reflect reality are arrived at only through evidence. what you want to believe does not affect reality whatsoever. and when acted upon or promoted, biased conclusions can lead to grievous harm.
a culture which takes for granted irrational beliefs, even those which are trifling, is susceptible to uphold harmful structures by assuming that they must be upheld, by the decree of an all-powerful unseen entity. be it god, “nature”, or otherwise. do not ever say to me, “well, it COULD be true! we can’t know!” it will cause my skin to crawl.
everyone is susceptible to acting based on biased conclusions. but everyone should seek to avoid this as much as possible. it is only by rejecting contradictory or unfalsifiable ideas that this can be done to any efficacy whatsoever.