falsifiable science relies on adjusting to new evidence, so if an invisible being that doesn't interact in our world in any way was able to be quantified in a reproducible experience or experiment, the science would change to accommodate its existence and all fundamental assumptions about reality
Unfalsifiable things are distinctive, in that there is no evidence that would change the assumption. its working backwards to support the unfalsifiable view, as opposed to working forward and adjusting to any result even if it doesnt match the view
and its existence cannot be relied upon to substantiate anything else
the hypothesis wouldn't present itself at all without hearsay, or just be invalidated by all experiments and useless for building upon, compared to just using the substantiated resources at hand: in your analogy that would be all of the other RAM and computational resources to your benefit.
whereas if you play hide and seek with a friend that says theyre going to hide in a magical land you cant access, then you cant play with that friend anymore and thats the totality of the observation, compared to the friend thats ultimately just another process hiding in RAM.
> so if an invisible being that doesn't interact in our world in any way was able to be quantified in a reproducible experience
No invisible beigns here. Our creators are either extinct (killed by a world-altering catastrophe, perhaps) or are somewhere far away where they can observe their creation.
Your denial of reality is the same. Because even evolution had to start from somewhere. We still haven't figured that out. Living organisms didn't just spring into existence out of nowhere.
Unfalsifiable things are distinctive, in that there is no evidence that would change the assumption. its working backwards to support the unfalsifiable view, as opposed to working forward and adjusting to any result even if it doesnt match the view