I have a deviating understanding of the simulation hypothesis. If I look at our universe as simulation, then it seems to me irrelevant whether this simulation is actually executed or not. In my understanding of simulation hypothesis, we exist because we can be simulated; not because we are simulated.
Say our universe can be described by a finite set of rules and initial states. Then every possible future sequence of states of the universe can in principle be calculated. Even if some rules are stochastic, something can in theory run a simulation long enough to cause any possible sequence of states.
Then what makes our universe real? Is it real because it is executed on some mysterious "real" computing device? If we run our universe on more real computers, will it be more real? But from the viewpoint of the universe, it makes no difference if it is executed on 1, 2, 3, ..., N computing devices. No sequence of states of the universe depends on this information of how many computing devices it runs on.
Then what if N=0? If the universe is not executed on a single computing device, then does it not exist?
Executing the universe is something that makes the universe observable by someone running the simulation. But is an execution needed for the sole purpose of the universe to exist?
Is it possible that every possible universe must exist simply because it theoretically can exist?
Can the simulation of our universe exist without a simulator?
Am I right to assume that if we accept the simulation hypothesis we must accept this 'simulation without simulator hypothesis'?