Does this truly put the argument to rest though? The conclusion seems to be that because the complexity of a machine (that we can conceive) would need more atoms than (we know of) in our universe, that it's impossible that we're living in a simulation. All that says to me is that it's impossible we're living in a simulation constructed of our best understanding of what a computer can be, and made of/describing the particles we know of... which only constitutes like 5% of the universe. What's stopping a system we can't comprehend made of matter we neither know of nor understand from being what's running the simulation? Disclaimer: My opinion is based on the cosmos magazine write-up, as reading the paper just showed me how illiterate I am in quantum particle physics, haha. So if someone could explain why the paper proves I'm wrong that would be awesome!
Hitting a limit of exponential expansion in computing is akin to hitting a speed-of-light limit in velocity: you cannot go faster than the speed of light because your mass divides by zero causing energy to multiply by infinity. The arguments against are akin to "yeah, but what if there's another universe where going faster than the speed of light doesn't make your mass divide by zero?" Okay, fine. But your simulating universe no longer has relativity as we understand it. Fundamental shit like how protons and electrons interact has changed. "matter" means something different there. Prior to this paper the navel-staring eggheads were all "well what if it's all, like, a simulation, maaaan?" and the argument made by the paper is "if it's a simulation it's running somewhere so unlike our universe that now you're just trying to dig out a new definition of God."