And yes if you do not believe that physics accurately describes the world 'out there' (independent from yourself) then you should get help. Sure the reasoning is fun to follow but it will always boil down to a brain in a vat kind of argumentation and then you'll get stuck and can't reach any valid conclusion (except for Descartes' I think therefor I am). Philosophers are wasting tons and tons of time and money on this bullshit while the result is clear no matter how you phrase the question.
Philosophers don't have to bring it up every 20 years as if it's some new kind of epiphany which will rock the world.
Similarly there can be an almighty God who simulates everything which we can never ever verify.
As the train of thought won't lead anywhere, because we can't verify if we are in a simulation or not.
However I don't agree with accepting that some things are beyond my ability to comprehend (the ability to perceive is more complex and you get into all sorts of trouble with that especially in this particular context).
"we are inside the matrix" (or "The matrix has you" as was a tagline of the movie) would be interchangeable with living inside of a simulation
It is the case of course that if we live inside of a simulation then we can have no idea what the real world would look like
but I have not seen any compelling evidence of it being otherwise.)
That's just false in so many ways...
What? I really don't see what you're trying to say there.
As for the evidence, all new findings come from scientific fields. So scientists would understand the evidence, philosophers will then use a misinterpretation of that to reason about something from absurdity. (because several philosophers will misinterpret science and then argue points which are clearly false for decades)
Especially those who deal with existential or religious questions are, more often than not, retarded.