I understood your comment to be an argument in favour of the simulation hypothesis. So my comment says that that doesn't work.

On second reading though it seems like all you're proposing is a mental model for 'analog' computation; that it's like outsourcing the computation to a lower level of hardware. Then yes I agree with that.

Yeah, I'm not advocating the simulation hypothesis as such : ) I'm only saying it fits here nicely as a thought experiment (that's why I emphasized: "for argument's sake"). Its actual correctness is beyond the point.

As for the validity of simulation hypothesis itself, I'd say it's essentially religion in disguise*. It's unfalsifiable by definition too, and personally I apply Occam's razor on the idea, but obviously I can't disprove it. The question can't be "is it true", but it's fine to ask "is it a useful (or at least thought-provoking) metaphor?" (in a given context).

___

* Most religions, in my view, can be broken down to the sum of: a) simulation hypothesis of sorts (universe run by Creator), b) code of ethics with mnemonic narratives, c) ceremonies, that covers most of it analytically speaking.

The universe working on a computational principle no more entails it being a simulation than the previous "mechanics" based physics entails it being a machine. Its an unfortunate fact of language and history that it is hard to express the idea of "digital physics" without misleading people into a quasi-scientific secular form of Gnosticism (aka: this is the simulation, the real reality and motivations of the people behind it are hidden from us).