Which actually wasn't a claim at all, but rather a retort to any claims made to such fanciful abstract speculation are unfalsifiable which means they are inherently fallacious. You simply doubled down on the fallacy by asserting that I can't prove we aren't already in a condition that was already unfalsifiable to begin with. Ergo your logic, if you can call it that, is really not fundamentally different than those who speculate about an invisible sky daddy and then assume the burden of proof lies with those who can't disprove such speculation.
My answer to your demand, yes demand as it's been no less than 4 times now by my count, was cogito ergo sum. Now I suspect you don't like that answer, but completely ignoring it by pretending I didn't back up my claim doesn't really do your unsupported assertion much favor.