Simulation hypothesis is unfalsifiable and therefore uninteresting (fight me)

I keep seeing people treat the simulation hypothesis as somehow philosophically deep. It isn't. The claim that our universe might be a simulation inside another physical system is either unfalsifiable by construction or it isn't actually different from ordinary physics. If the simulation runs on some substrate we can't detect, every possible observation is compatible with it. That makes it exactly as interesting as Last Thursdayism. If the simulation could leave detectable artifacts, that's a scientific hypothesis — fine, but then let's see the evidence. Bostrom's trilemma rests on assumptions about substrate independence and computational universality that are themselves deeply contested. I think the appeal is mostly aesthetic — it satisfies a certain kind of cosmic longing without requiring actual argument.