the elephant i was referring to is us, within the sim. if you are saying that we are naught but, rather detailed information, that is what i meant, when i said we need not be real for the purpose of simulation. i'm still not sure how the lack of "a convincing unifying theory to explain our reality" makes simulation hypothesis a forgone conclusion. it would be easier if we could break down all of reality to 1s and 0s but easy never won a nobel physics prize or elucidated a natural law. i am almost certain that i can't make any assumption about the creative thought processes of sentient sapients other than myself, even within my own species. this seems another attempt to address the origin problem without actually addressing it. i call this, "getting lost in the weeds" show me evidence of the simulation base program, beyond the internal logical assumptions required for the hypothesis and based on a desire for ease, and i will concede the possibility. that is still far from the deluge of assumptions required to make this hypothesis go. i do love speculation but i try to keep it separate from assumptions that are safe to be made about the natural world.