It's on the same level as saying "There are gazillions of unicorns outside of our universe." It's just an idea in our heads. It doesn't tell us anything about our universe, about what we can ever possibly experience. Occams razor would remove this from our model of the world.
Also, when we're talking about what could hypothetically be outside of our universe, unreachable to us, there are millions of possible theories. (All of them meaningless.) Why choose a simulation on a computer from our universe?
Turing-completeness is a Mathematical phenomenon which doesn't have anything to do with our Universe. Whenever we talk about Turing-completeness in relation to our Universe, it is always an assumption. That's why the Church-Turing thesis isn't a theorem.
Hence, if it's reasonable to go from "lots of complex stuff exists" down to "simple fundamental physics exists, complex stuff is emergent" then it's not unreasonable to go down a further layer and say "computation exists, physics is emergent". It's pure reductionism; the first step takes us from a world of "complex stuff with fundamental physics which can do computation" to a world of "fundamental physics which can do computation"; the second step goes from "fundamental physics which can do computation" to "computation".
What is anything but an "idea in our heads?"
Even physical sensations are just ideas of tactility.
It seems silly, as someone who isn't omniscient, to claim that our universe being a 'simulation' has no bearing upon experience. For all you know, light's speed is based on the clock-speed of a higher-dimensional crystal. It's interesting to think about, and there actually are consequences to this even if they aren't immediately discoverable.
For a guy with a username like RiveriaKid..you sure have a closed mind unlike a child.
> What is anything but an "idea in our heads?" Even physical sensations are just ideas of tactility.
Perceptions (I see an elephant) are different than ideas or thoughts (I think there are pink elephants in parallel universe).
> It's interesting to think about, and there actually are consequences to this even if they aren't immediately discoverable.
What consequences? If there are consequences than yes, we can add "we're in a simulation" to our model of the world. But there can be much simpler explanation of the phenomena. Models of the world should be as simple as possible. See Occams razor.
> For a guy with a username like RiveriaKid..you sure have a closed mind unlike a child.
I have a very open mind but I'm also very rational. The username is a reference to one great sci-fi sitcom by the way.
> Perceptions (I see an elephant) are different than ideas or thoughts (I think there are pink elephants in parallel universe).
There is a difference between perceptions and ideas, though its pretty hard to illustrate because you can't describe a perception without categorizing it by ideas that are external to the perception ("elephant", for instance, is an idea, not a perception), and even short of description to others, ideas shape our internal experience of sense data on a pretty fundamental level.
Thats is a completely meaningless statement. If we added this to our model of the world, the model wouldn't predict any new phenomena.
> Is consciousness the derivative of information with respect to the difference of information
You can define consciousness like that. But it would be something different then our intuitive understanding of consciousness.