I have long found the Simulation Hypothesis to be better-able to answer questions that I have regarding the universe than the string theory and the quantum field theory. What I believe is that the notion of our universe being a simulation, especially in the last few years, has developed to the point where it should be seriously considered as a candidate for A Theory of Everything.
Work on it, by the likes of Nick Bostrom (who proposed the Simulation Argument in his groundbreaking paper), has been cohesive and it has time and time again been proven to be just as plausible as any theory out there. Remember that a theory is just that, a theory. And as a theory, the Simulation Argument gives fitting answers to a lot of questions that physicists have found hard to answer for decades.
Much to the dismay of pragmatists, the results yielded by the Double-Slit Experiment have been particularly insightful.
The Simulation Hypothesis has much less irregularities than the other theories. It pays just as much heed to the laws of physics and mathematics, even being better able to address issues of epistemology and metaphysics.
Then why is it that we don't even see it as a contender for A Theory of Everything?