Totally. This is an area that religion claims to address—believers in a religion [1] could frame God as The Simulator and a divine revelation as a message from the simulator, perhaps regarding the purpose of the simulation—that otherwise there is no way to know.
The author of the paper describes a limitation of this line of inquiry:
> The type of simulation ruled out is very specific. Perhaps that is the price one must pay to make any kind of Popperian progress.
It reminds me of this:
> For were I to praise [God] ... I would find that my praise of Thee can befit only such as are like unto me, who are themselves Thy creatures, and who have been generated through the power of Thy decree ...
It's an area that's inherently challenging to explore from inside the simulation!
[1] Disclaimer: Baha'i here, watch out
[2] Baha'u'llah — http://www.bahai.org/library/authoritative-texts/bahaullah/p...
Really, it seems to apply to external soft errors with any cause, even unimaginable ones. But yes, it is still pretty specific.
This could be the quadrillionth iteration by which point they'd be pretty confident though.