You are pushing a bit too far there. It's one (bad) thing to say, "my theory is X (a miracle), even though Occam's Razor suggests Y (evolution), and both X and Y explain Z (dino bones), and we agree Z is true".
It is another thing to say, "my theory X (simulation) implies Z (a symmetry-violation), which has no other proposed explanation, and we have observed Z".
That said, I am more than willing to bet that the lattice will not be discovered.
If there are no other explanations that fit the data that anyone has come up with, then fine. But I would not personally be particularly convinced by a simulationist interpretation until I thought that the evidence had been repeatedly tested in a fairly wide variety of ways over a long period of time. For me it is one of the ideas that the phrase "Extraordinary claims must be backed up with extraordinary evidence." was built for.
It is another thing to say, "my theory X (simulation) implies Z (a symmetry-violation), which has no other proposed explanation, and we have observed Z".
That said, I am more than willing to bet that the lattice will not be discovered.