Testing for “bubble universes” isn’t the Simulation Hypothesis. You are the one introducing the speculative straw-man that because other hypothesis are better founded, that the hypothesis that someone designed our world with agency is of similar validity.
What is the testable evidence for that hypothesis that doesn’t rely on unfalsifiable assumptions about an intelligent designer?
You’ve already said:
If testing finds deviations from what QM predicts, that will be a challenge for the predictive validity of QM theories (or the quality of the tests). “Evidence of the fingerprints of a Maker that’s super powerful but not powerful enough to simulate a reality-experience fully” would not be in running for best interpretation of the data… (well I’m sure some people would interpret it as that, maybe even you?)
The point is you’re relying on QM to be both true and capable of predicting conditions, and simultaneously to fail to make those predictions, so that we can see something’s “wrong” with the world (since humans have a perfect model of QM?). Circular proofs.
See, look at this stew of unfalsifiable assertion. You’re relying on the condition being true of what your test is supposed to detect.
