philosophers have been asking this for a while and there is a long long list of different answers. But the mere fact that we basically have to prove reality exists in reality should suffice as a short answer. Meaning we still have to say reality exist or doesn’t exist in reality…which wouldn’t make sense if there isn’t reality in reality. I don’t want to go out of my dept with epistemology, but thats a short answer and you can already see how it gets deep.
You basically said it, at some point there would still be the absolute real no?
And lets say i’m holding an apple in this simulation. What is this apple based on? This object apple must be based on something that exist no?