Actually, I was pointing out an absurdity of your simulation hypothesis - if you think that the absurdity leads to determinism beliefs I shall not argue with you; personally, I don't know.
I suspect that I'm using the word hypothesis incorrectly because I doubt that that the simulation idea has been framed in such a way that it can be refuted but am open to correction. For examples ways are "invented" to get round problems - ways that can't be verified, such as our consciousness existing outside the universe. Again, I may be in error with this statement, and simulation doesn't require this at all.
Either way the ideas of simulation are ill defined with a foundation stone (consciousness) on which it depends lacking a clear definition.
