If $\mathcal{A}$ is an abelian category, then the Dold-Kan correspondence supplies an equivalence between the category of simplicial objects of $\mathcal{A}$ and the category of nonnegatively graded chain complexes in $\mathcal{A}$. One can therefore think of simplicial objects as a generalization of chain complexes to non-abelian settings.
In homological algebra, chain complexes often arise by choosing ``resolutions'' of objects $X \in \mathcal{A}$: that is, chain complexes
$$ \cdots \rightarrow P_2 \rightarrow P_1 \rightarrow P_0$$
with homology $$H_{i}( P_{\ast} ) = \begin{cases} X & \text{ if } i = 0 \\
0 & \text{ otherwise }. \end{cases}$$
Among these, a special role is played by projective resolutions: that is, resolutions where each $P_n$ is a projective object of $\mathcal{A}$.
If $X_{\ast}$ is a simplicial space, it might be helpful to think of $X_{\ast}$
as a resolution of the geometric realization $| X_{\ast} |$. It plays the role of a ``projective resolution'' if $X_{\ast}$ is degreewise discrete: that is, if it is a simplicial set.
Vidit, thanks for the advertisement; Paul I'll answer your email shortly.
As a minor point, there is a small but subtle mistake in Clader's work
that is corrected in Matthew Thibault's 2013 Chicago thesis, which goes
further in that direction.
I do intend to finish the advertised book, but it is too incomplete to
circulate yet. There is actually a large and interesting picture that
connects mainstream algbraic topology to combinatorics via finite spaces.
However, the right level
of generality is $T_0$-Alexandroff spaces, $A$-spaces for short. These
are topological spaces in which arbitrary rather than just finite
intersections of open sets are open, and of course finite $T_0$-spaces
are the obvious examples. One can in principle answer Paul's question in the
affirmative, but the finiteness restriction feels artificial and the connection
between $A$-spaces and simplicial complexes is far too close to ignore.
The category of $A$-spaces is isomorphic to the category of posets, $A$-spaces
naturally give rise to ordered simplicial complexes (the order complex of a
poset) and thus to simplicial sets, while abstract simplicial complexes naturally
give rise to $A$-spaces (the face poset).
Subdivision is central to the theory, and barycentric subdivision of a
poset is WHE to the face poset of its order complex.
Categories connect up since the second subdivision of a category is
a poset, which helps illuminate Thomason's equivalence between the
homotopy categories of $\mathcal{C}at$ and $s\mathcal{S}et$.
Weak and actual homotopy equivalences are wildly different for
$A$-spaces. In the usual world of spaces, they correspond to
homotopy equivalences and simple homotopy equivalences, respectively,
a point of view that Barmak's book focuses on.
The $n$-sphere is WHE to a space with $2n+2$ points, and that is the
minimum number possible.
If the poset $\mathcal{A}_pG$ of non-trivial elementary abelian $p$-subgroups of a
finite group $G$ is contractible, then $G$ has a normal $p$-subgroup. A celebrated conjecture of Quillen says in this language that if
$\mathcal{A}_pG$ is weakly contractible (WHE to a point), then it is
contractible and hence $G$ has a normal $p$-subgroup. There are many
interesting contractible finite spaces that are not weakly contractible.
These facts just scratch the surface and were nearly all previously known,
but there is much that is new in the book, some of it due to students
at Chicago where I have taught this material in our REU off and on since 2003.
This is ideal material for the purpose. (Obsolete notes and even current ones
can be found on my web page by those sufficiently interested to search: Minian,
Barmak's thesis advisor in Buenos Aires, found them there and started off work
in Argentina based on them.) I apologize for this extended advertisement,
but perhaps Paul's question gives me a reasonable excuse.
Best Answer
It depends on what you mean by "all results". Of course results regarding manifolds or vector bundles do not admit statements completely internal to the world of simplicial sets (although most of them are just an application of $\operatorname{Sing}$ away from the world of simplicial sets).
But if one concentrates oneself to the "purely homotopical" statements (like, say, the Freudenthal suspension theorem, the Whitehead theorem, the Brown representability theorem and the Blakers-Massey theorem) they can all be stated in terms of simplicial sets (or, better, Kan complexes).
Indeed there is a textbook by Goerss and Jardine that does most elementary homotopy theory in terms of simplicial sets.