>
Occam's razor would say that the simplest explanation is the best_Best_ not as in "the true one", but as in "the most possible, if we don't know any better".
An event could have an elaborate explanation and a simple one, and the elaborate explanation could still be the true one.
E.g a guy is found knifed in a desolate street of New York. His wallet is missing. He had no known enemies. The simplest explanation is "it was a mugging gone wrong". In fact, he was killed by a guy that had an obsession on the girl he recently started dating. The killer didn't even take the wallet to make it look like a mugging: he took it because it had pictures of the girl and the dead guy he wanted to add to his "shrine". (Hmm, I should go write for CSI).
>thus since this "simulation" works exactly the same as the known universe and we don't know about anything that is outside the universe we can safely ignore this theory and not lose any information about how the universe works.
Except if a simulation _doesn_t work_ "exactly the same as the known universe" but has tiny details that could be telling, which is, like, the premise of the whole article.