"It is not possible to simulate n humans without resources of complexity at least n."

Still disagree. As I pointed out, it is possible to for a short program to generate outputs with a very large number of complex components.

It's my view that theories which reject either observation or logic don't motivate action because they give you nothing to go on. There are many of them, but that's part of the problem since they include "the world is like X and you've failed to observe it correctly" for every X, making it difficult to break the symmetry.

Given only partial failure of observation or logic (where most of your observations and deductions are still correct), you still have something to go on, so you shouldn't have symmetry there. For everything to cancel so that your 1/3^^^^3-probability hypothesis dominates your decision-making, it would require a remarkably precise symmetry in everything else.

Maybe I could have saved myself a lot of karma by just introducing the two of you instead.

I have also argued against the median utility maximization proposal already, actually.