I mean the link you linked to is pretty terrible itself

> There are many theories in theoretical physics where it is very difficult or impossible to come up with experiments to prove or disprove them, e.g. Everett’s Many-Worlds Interpretation or the String Theory. One might call these sorts of theories metaphysical, fine, but it doesn’t make them into disproven pseudoscience or religions.

Like i'm really not sure how you can argue that religion and metaphysics are distinct. The main difference is just how much cultural baggage is attached.

Ultimately after reading that article (and having not watched the video it is responding to) my conclusion is not that Sabine misunderstands the simulation theory (she may or may not, but nothing there convinced me she did) but that the author of the article misunderstands what the word "science" means. Like the term "pseudoscience" may be unfair, as that has specific connotations, but its clearly a metaphysical theory not a scientific theory.

I don't see how the claim that our universe is simulated is related to metaphysics in the first place.

You don't understand how the simulation hypothesis is related to "the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space."?

Tangentially sure it is, but it seems like a more concrete matter than what I would think of as a typical metaphysical topic.

Is it really more concrete than the traditional big metaphysical questions like: "why is there something rather than nothing" or "is there a real external universe outside of the mind"?

If anything, the simulation hypothesis seems to be an attempt to partially shed light on those traditional metaphysical questions. I would say the hypothesis is not tangential but directly bears on metaphysics.