It bears some similarities to the ontological argument, but it's not fundamentally grounded in ontology. It's based on the hypothesis that simulation is possible, which is testable in some sense.
Say we cook up a little Earth simulator, and it spontaneously generates a perfect being with both agency and omniscience. That would be a fair bit of evidence for the ontological argument, yes?
That's also why I say "completely accurate". A really rigorous argument relies on recursive simulation, since creating a simulation that couldn't be the universe isn't very strong evidence. (I'm typing on one right now, in fact.) If we make a completely accurate simulation, we can skip the step of proving that we can make a simulation of it, because we already did.
Say we cook up a little Earth simulator, and it spontaneously generates a perfect being with both agency and omniscience. That would be a fair bit of evidence for the ontological argument, yes?
That's also why I say "completely accurate". A really rigorous argument relies on recursive simulation, since creating a simulation that couldn't be the universe isn't very strong evidence. (I'm typing on one right now, in fact.) If we make a completely accurate simulation, we can skip the step of proving that we can make a simulation of it, because we already did.