I'm still confused. Are you saying our society has elevated the theory that we're a simulation to the status of dogma? That doesn't match with what I observe. Are you saying it's untestable? That's what the article is about. Are you saying that we have no a priori reason to believe it might be true? If you look at the universe as it appears to be, then it's a justifiable surmise that the majority of humans intelligences that will exist will be in simulations that we will run. That's why people are interested in figuring out if we're the people in the simulations in the first place. I really still don't see why you think the situations are comparable.
No, the society in the book did that, I was giving you the context of the quote.
Also, I am not sure that a positive result in that experiment would necessarily prove the hypothesis. The trouble is that if you think you have evidence for the universe being a simulation, you have actually found evidence for any number of things from god to solipsism, depending on what hat you are wearing, but you haven't actually got anywhere and unless you have really exhausted all possible other explanations for what you have measured, then I don't think it is a particularly rational position to take, although it is admittedly quite fun.
Now it could be that we are in a simulation, but if we are, how do you know that anything you detect wasn't put there on purpose to trick you into thinking that you are in a different kind of simulation from the one you are actually in, as a honeypot to fool would be hackers of the simulation? And suddenly we are back in comedy-god land.
You are pushing a bit too far there. It's one (bad) thing to say, "my theory is X (a miracle), even though Occam's Razor suggests Y (evolution), and both X and Y explain Z (dino bones), and we agree Z is true".
It is another thing to say, "my theory X (simulation) implies Z (a symmetry-violation), which has no other proposed explanation, and we have observed Z".
That said, I am more than willing to bet that the lattice will not be discovered.
If there are no other explanations that fit the data that anyone has come up with, then fine. But I would not personally be particularly convinced by a simulationist interpretation until I thought that the evidence had been repeatedly tested in a fairly wide variety of ways over a long period of time. For me it is one of the ideas that the phrase "Extraordinary claims must be backed up with extraordinary evidence." was built for.
