3. the production of a computer model of something, especially for the purpose of study.
#1 and #2 are pretty easy to prove, just look at journalism (arguably the main source of authoritative "plot twists and general stimulation", or many other broadly respected/worshipped disciplines, like "science" and their Theory of "Everything"), and the effect it has on people (hint: they typically believe it is an accurate representation of reality, you can tell because they will cite it as proof of their beliefs, and get angry if you do not accept it as proof).
One then runs into another problem: this will be rejected, because that "is not" a simulation, which brings us to yet another level of the simulation: language - the words we use to describe reality are objectively and obscenely incorrect, most of the time. Sometimes people will notice this, other times they will not - whether they do or not can be predicted with astonishing accuracy regardless of the person or their educational level based on whether it supports their pre-existing belief or not.
This basically ends up with a paradox: from most phenomenological perspectives (the main perspective, on a weighted causality basis), it is not possible for us to be living in a simulation, because of the simulation (culture, yet another level). It's basically bulletproof, a lot like like religion but even trickier and stronger.
> or do we care enough to know?
Consider the time and dedication it took to solve the many thousands of things that used to be a mystery - indeed, we do not care enough to take on solving this relatively simple problem. If you try to do it during a conversation, most people will object, usually passionately, based on memes like "We don't have time for that", "That's not what this place is for", etc. I'd even say that certain people in certain positions may like things just as they are, this state of affairs has high utility.
