hi doma,
sounds like you read the article as non-supportive.
i read it as a report about folks thinking the same things you do. the comment about the rabbit hole in the article was surely that down the rabbit hole one enters a world of wild imagination in which the rules are totally different. seems to me that's a reasonable articulation of the simulated universe theory.
as regards the view from the inside, i am not sure you characterise my beliefs adequately. i don't believe in something from nothing. for me, the opposing forces are a constant. matter and space are an expression of an ever changing state of opposition, all the way from the top (the universe) to the bottom (the quantum field). just as the "nullity" is, but without the constraints of space. the nullification of matter and space doesn't mean the nullification of force. it just means that for a moment in (or outside) time, during the instant of nullity, only the opposing forces exist. then, with a bang, the universe of space and matter and time takes shape.
is the universe a simulation? it could be. but being a flatlander, it is kinda hard to test the notion of a 3D reality. any rule that i can think of and that is consistent with an externally created set of rules in a simulation is also consistent with an internal set of rules in an actually existing but constantly changing universe.
i think your simulation is as provable as the idea of a god. the fact that it cannot be proved doesn't mean it ain't so. but the speculation is like the famous turtle stack. it's speculation all the way down. i don't try to answer the question about the existence of god because i don't think there is a verifiable answer from this vantage point.
| 
