[yyyk]

If we don't know anything about the "real" (or at least, "realer") world, I don't see how we can argue for a simulation either.

If we don't know the "real" rules, how can we make any proposition? At best we might argue that our world is inconsistent, but we cannot say that's any more or less likely than a simulation (who says the world has to make any sense?).

The only semi-useful simulation arguments have to assume the "real" world is sorta like our world or at least functioning according to math. But that returns us to the simulation cost problem.