>>11488208simulation theory breaks down the most when it's applied with pretenses that might be imagined within the simulation.
For one, there's nothing saying that the universe we exist in, if it were a simulated state on a computer, must require the computational prowess described. Even if this simulation computer were larger than our universe, that doesn't explicitly mean that the greater expanse of anything beyond this universe isn't large enough to accommodate it.
Ultimately, the bigger issue is thinking that it actually has to do with computers at all. Simulation doesn't need to mean "simulated on a computer" as if we're in The Matrix specifically, though even The Matrix's simulation theory is believable because the entire planet had been turned into a computer, which seems like an awfully large enough computer to calculate everything that we'd need to interact with.
But again, simulation doesn't inherently mean "on a computer". A dream can be a simulation and your brain isn't a mechanical computer of bits and byte and RAM.
For the extent of everything about this world and considering it might be a simulation based on strange occurrences, there's really nothing that implies the nature of the simulation has anything to do with computers as humanity can build or theorize about. It is just as likely to be a simulation in the greater consciousness of a some kind of biological ethereal entity.
Anyway, the strongest proof for simulation theory is strictly just that: dreams. Dreams show you other worlds with different behaviors, different events, different physical abilities, different rules of gravity, etc.
