I think a more interesting question is: would it matter if it were?
Their arguments, no matter how clever, would be absurd when looking in from the outside.
If there's a high probability that the simulation hypothesis is true, it seems clinically insane to believe that it doesn't matter.
I we were in a simulation where the creator(s) were hands off, just letting it run its course, then I don't think it really matters. If, on the other hand, they're pulling strings and manipulating outcomes for whatever reason, then it seems like it matters a lot more. At least that's my intuition.
Which view point is better -- one that believes in a flat earth or one that sees the world as spherical and all that this fact entails?
A flat Earther can't put a rover on Mars but someone who knows that the world is round can.
Imagine what a person who comes to understand that the world is a simulation could do.
Why? Undoubtedly the world outside our own has its own problems, all of which are possibly utterly alien to us.
> or finding out how far the turtles go from the developer's world.
To what end? Why is the top-most reality more valuable? If it is merely a matter of having more to explore, well, there's still plenty of this universe left.
> If it is a simulation, then I want to alter the damn rules to eliminate the scarcity we currently labor under.
Fair enough, but if there's a way to do that it hardly matters if we're in a simulation or not. Any exploit we pull off may as well just be some quirk of physics from our perspective.
Selfishly, I don't want our reality to be turned off.
All other motivations follow from that, as intermediate steps to figure out how to break out and become more permanent. Even if I'm a consciousness inside a Boltzmann Brain near the heat death of the reality-actual, a hundred Sol years passing for every "second" of simulation "tick", I want help in whatever way I can on a solution to beat entropy. Not going gentle and all that...