This is the least compelling argument on the subject I have seen. New-agey religious hokus-pokus. That you can't prove it wrong, doesn't make it plausible - a LOT of things fall into that category including Bertrand Russel's teapot.

How about talking about the mathematical intuition behind simulation theory. If you think it plausible that we will one day create simulations complex enough to contain conscious beings, and you think it likely we are not the only such civilization in the universe, then it naturally follows that simulated universes well out number real ones. Thus we're more likely to find ourselves in a simulated universe than a real one. If you accept the first premise, which is a jump with our current technology, but maybe not a jump out of reach - then one must accept the conclusion as well.

Or one can look at how odd it is that the entropy of a 3-dimensional volume of space is proportional to the surface area - not the volume. That's a counter-intuitive result that strongly suggests our three dimensions are an illusion.

Or even spooky action at a distance - instantaneous communication of quantum state across vast distances is difficult to explain in a physical universe, but could be much easier in a simulation - especially if entangled particles shared some sort of locality inside the computer running it (e.g. adjacent bits in memory.)

the issue is not new. but this is the most interesting and deep argument on the subject i have seen to date. now that i have read this, my life will never be the same! lol