In the news

Isn't it a tad obvious to suggest that our universe (the perceived system) can be categorised/understood (simulated) within our own understanding of it?

It's a fairly circular (hence compelling) thought, but is entirely unlikely in my opinion (as I also believe we will only ever be aware of a tiny fraction of the bigger picture)?

The theory rests on the likelihood of repeated simulations which doesn't seem that sound? If you removed the computer-based interpretation then essentially it's about linked universes (along any plain) and the only thing new here is the use of the word "simulation" and the neat way abstract limitations fit into that kind of model?

Well, that convinced me.

It didn't make any sense, but it convinced me that you haven't read the paper.