Not that I think we're all hooked up to machines like in the Matrix and are protein servants to robot overlords, but there is something I find pretty compelling about the Simulation Argument (which for the record, I completely understand that it is not arguing that we are indeed in a simulation, it's saying that it's one of 3 conclusions. And the simulation option is the most far fetched of the the three.)
I think this video explains it best:
At there very least, it's fun to think about even if you only look at it as a mental exercise combining science fiction and logic.
Now with that said ...
I'm not terribly knowledgeable in the field of astrophysics (ok, I'm not terribly knowledgeable in much for that matter), but from I understand there are a handful of physicists theorizing that we exist in a multiverse. Now putting the concepts together (Simulation Argument and the Multiverse), I could imagine a scenario in which, say, the entire universe is indeed some sort of simulation or constructed illusion where The Big Bang could have been nothing more than one supercomputer in a network coming online. Multiple/parallel universes could just be other servers on the "network." And if you know networks and computing at all, you know things just go down from time to time. Maybe the "universe collapsing" is really just a hardware failure in some cosmic server room :P
I mean, there is S. James Gates claiming that when you dive deep enough into String Theory, "computer code" emerges that resembles very specific error correcting code devised in the 1940s. As stated before, I really "know" very little about all of this, I just read a lot of bubblegum science.
It's my understanding that many well respected minds are working in String Theory, but it in itself is by no means "accepted" within the world of physics. The discovery of Higgs Boson disproves ST for many, but for many others they say it does no such thing because ST accounts for the Higgs Boson. And that's about my level of understanding of the debate.
And then of course there's John Wheeler. Was he nuts, or was he onto something (or just ON something) when he claimed that behind everything physical there is underlying information guiding it?
You never knoooowwwww
PS - The answer is 42.