Sure I agree with all of that. But claiming that our reality became so much more complex that its not feasible to simulate it, therefore we are not living in a

Sure I agree with all of that. But claiming that our reality became so much more complex that its not feasible to simulate it, therefore we are not living in a simulation is laughable. If we hypothetically assume we are a program, there is nothing to derive about the stimulants their reality or/and capabilities. They might be as well a 4D being running some tests. We might never know. maybe their physics is different then our who know. Furthermore you do not need to simulate ever molecule in out universe. I am sure there would be optimizations of stuff that doesn't need to be simulated as its not observed. Say up until recently a Pluto might needed less resources to simulate as it was never really seen, now it surface needs to be simulated etc. I am sure you get the point. I myself am not really concerned about the simulation hypothesis and I think its less likely. A simulation needs to be useful and if we were to run our simulation and start a possible chain then the cost of running the whole thing is felt the most at the actual real universe. If the cost is too high (ie time resolution is too slow for the liking of the owners) it will be terminated or rebooted. So if we are in simulation then not starting a simulation would be the wisest choice to prolong our existence. Either way its just an idle friday chitchat with no way to check or prove anything :)