from wikipedia [link to en.wikipedia.org]

Simulation argument
Main article: Simulation argument

The simulation hypothesis was first published by Hans Moravec.[1][2][3] Later, the philosopher Nick Bostrom developed an argument distinct from the skeptical hypothesis, that we may be living in a simulation.[4] Roughly, his argument proceeds as follows:

i. Human descendants might not survive long enough to achieve an advanced civilization capable of creating computer simulations that host simulated people with artificial intelligence (AI) comparable to the natural faculties of their ancestors.

ii. Such ancestral simulations might be intellectually or culturally prohibited in some way, even a modest interest could plausibly generate billions of simulated people (for research, genealogy, reenactment, nostalgia, recreation or other reasons).

iii. Informing an artificial person that they are living in a simulation would defeat the authenticity of the simulation — better that they genuinely go about their daily business, for all intents and purposes, given a high-fidelity historical reproduction of the real world.

Barring extinction or prohibition, it is much more likely than not, that we are living in such a simulation — and should it come to pass that we, ourselves, run such simulations, it is all but certain.

In greater detail, Bostrom is attempting to prove a tripartite disjunction, that at least one of these propositions must be true. His argument rests on the premise that given sufficiently advanced technology, it is possible to represent the populated surface of the Earth without recourse to quantum simulation; that the qualia experienced by a simulated consciousness is comparable or equivalent to that of a naturally occurring human consciousness; and that one or more levels of simulation within simulations would be feasible given only a modest expenditure of computational resources in the real world.

If one assumes that humans will not be destroyed or destroy themselves before developing such a technology; and if one assumes that human descendants will have no overriding legal restrictions or moral compunctions against simulating their ancestors; it would be unreasonable to count ourselves among the small minority of genuine ancestors who, sooner or later, will be vastly outnumbered by artificial simulations.

This means... assuming humans don't kill themselves off... the odds that we are the ACTUAL GENUINE ARTICLE are probably similar to winning the lottery jackpot 10x in a row. Slim to none, and slim just walked out the door.

Sorry.