Are we living in a simulation?

There are numerous mysterious scientific phenomena that could have resulted from a simulation.

Question: Are we living in a simulation?
Position‹2 of 3›: Yes, we are living in a simulation.
Argument1 of 2›: There are numerous mysterious scientific phenomena that could have resulted from a simulation.

From molecular physics to climate change, there are many factors of our reality that, to believers in the simulation theory, directly correlate with some other force controlling human perception of the world.

The argument

Elon Musk, a giant within the scientific community, as well as other prominent astrophysicists and researchers today, believe in the possibility of a version of the Nick Bostrom simulation theory stating that if humanity technologically advances far into the future, they could have created the simulation we are living in right now. The reasoning is probabilistic rather than empirical: as the number of simulation in the future increases, so does the probability we are, in fact, existing in a synthetically created universe, because a future containing many simulated histories alongside one original would contain far more simulated observers than real ones. Proponents of Bostrom's hypothesis also point to other seemingly inexplicable scientific anomalies, arguing that certain findings sit more comfortably with the simulation reading than without it. One is the shifting of electrons from waves to particles when under observation, which they claim is an indication of the simulators controlling what humans can perceive — resolving detail only where someone is looking, in the way a rendered environment would. Another intriguing discovery was in 2017 when a group of University of Washington researchers "proved that they could embed malicious computer code into physical strands of DNA," which proponents take as a demonstration that biological material can carry and execute information in the manner of a computational system. None of this is offered as proof, and the argument does not claim that any of these anomalies has been shown to have a simulated cause. The claim is one of explanatory fit rather than of evidence: there are many mysterious questions science and research have not yet answered, and the simulation theory serves as a plausible explanation for some of them.

Premises

[P1]Figures like Elon Musk and astrophysicists endorse Bostrom's theory that an advanced future humanity could have created the simulation we now inhabit. [P2] As the number of possible simulations grows, so does the probability that ours is synthetic. [P3] Proponents point to anomalies like electrons shifting from waves to particles under observation, and even code embedded in DNA, as signs of simulators controlling perception. [C] Therefore, because numerous mysterious scientific phenomena could have resulted from a simulation, we are living in a simulation.

Counter-arguments

The scientific method and all the complex processes therein are disregarded throughout this argument. There is no evidence to suggest that human technology will advance far enough to simulate reality itself, and just because there are unsolved scientific mysteries does not mean the simulation theory is automatically the cause of them. The world should not conform to the hypothesis simply because something seems odd or inexplicable. One must test the theory, not look for other phenomena to confirm or deny it. The dichotomy between waves and particles is incredibly unlikely to result from simulated manipulation, and the Mandela Effect (also cited as one of the supposed bits of evidence for simulation in the world) could simply be the result of mixed memory from childhood. These are not sufficient reasons for proving the possibility of a simulated reality.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P2] Forming a hypothesis to fit external scientific phenomena around it is dangerous and illogical. Simply because these anomalies are mysteries, they should not automatically conform to the simulation theory, the connection's probability weak at best. [Rejecting P3] P2 does not provide a sufficient reason to believe in the simulation theory.