Superficially, this is little more than the philosophy "Brain in a Vat" thought experiment. It has some interesting uses for those interested in the subject of ontology, but it makes for awful science.
At its most fundamental level, it's bad science because it is unfalsifiable. A little like the question of "does God exist?", testing it requires the ability to inspect our universe from outside. So far, we have no means of even describing how that might happen, much less making it actually occur. This is one of the reasons that any hypothesis that ends with "and therefore God" (or some variation thereof) is fundamentally not science. The minute you can invoke an unknowable external entity which has no meaningful description, you are simply not engaging in science.