Your question about testability is justified. However, the considerations are not an empirical hypothesis in the scientific sense, but rather a philosophical argument. He is not claiming that the simulation hypothesis can be experimentally confirmed or refuted. His point is rather that even if one accepts the simulation hypothesis — even recursively — it does not result in a privileged beginning, a final observer, or ontological salvation. Change, emergence, and decay persist at every level. The question is therefore less whether we live in a simulation than what this assumption actually explains or changes.
Make your post relate to my post. Your statement currently does not.
It does, you make certain claims in your text, and the parent questions how to test you alternate theory against the perceived reality to see which of those two are true.
I understand why you consider his question relevant. At the same time, it is worth making a clear distinction: OP does not formulate an alternative empirical explanation of physical reality, but rather a philosophical reflection on the consequences of the simulation assumption itself. In this context, the question of experimental testability is generally meaningful, but it misses the point here because it presupposes a scientific hypothesis that OP does not even propose. His objection would be justified if OP were to claim truth in the scientific sense — but he does not.