I think you may misunderstand my point. I'm saying when "they" claim to have disproved the simulation hypothesis, it is useful to show that they have oversteppe

I think you may misunderstand my point. I'm saying when "they" claim to have disproved the simulation hypothesis, it is useful to show that they have overstepped their bounds. You can't disprove the simulation hypothesis. You can be as pissed about that as you like, but it's true. That doesn't mean all hope is lost. You can still work in the space where you just sort of take it as an ambient background fact that you can't do much about, then work with what you have. Technically that's what we do all the time anyhow. But when someone rigidly excludes the hypothesis, you know they've gone too far.