I don't think it's a reasonable hypothesis that the God of the simulation secretly wants people to flick the lightswitch off and on 17 times before entering every room but has never told anyone. Creating an infinity of possible alternatives and then assigning them all equal probability would cause you difficulties in many more situations than choosing a religion.

In general when there is an infinity of possible hypotheses (and there always is, in any situation) one does not quantify over them: decisions cannot be made in this way.

I didn't quantify over an infinity of possible hypothesis. I considered only hypothesis that were suggested by the data. We aren't dealing with pure prior probabilities here. We have observations; and even without observations, we have priors based on hypothesis complexity.

Since you say there are always an infinity of possible hypotheses, how would you choose between them, in any situation? Your claim implies that Bayesian reasoning is always impossible.