There is nothing wrong with that. All my comments are based on a few simple assumptions. First, that probability itself is a social construct and cannot be used

There is nothing wrong with that. All my comments are based on a few simple assumptions. First, that probability itself is a social construct and cannot be used as a tool to establish any criteria of existence. A close-enough model could be made but there still will be a gap between the model and actual reality, which could not be removed by any amount of math or modeling. Only by replicated empirical validation, like in the case of proving that DNA is indeed the genetic material. The second argument is based on the first, and it is the principle that a simulation is not a valid experiment for confirming an existence of any phenomena whatsoever because it is based on dogmas created out of math and modeling, not measurable and replicated direct observations. The process of producing a highly sophisticated model is closer to a theology rather than a science, and this is the point. With these principles it is easy to argue that this or that advanced theory could be mere a socially constructed set of beliefs which exists, like any other such social phenomenon, to benefit certain social group, say, clergymen. There is no idees fixes here. Just a bit of scepticism, philosophy of mind and sociology