I think that's probably accurate from their point of view. But the problem is that they have a very amusing perspective here, because they come off as a bunch of intellectuals. Intellectuals like to observe more than act, and it alienates them from the world.

What they call simulacra can just as easily be described as determination, or imperative. If you see true objectivity in some kind of inverse Platonic universe, where instead of essence, it's some kind of essential antimatter void of anything but what is ironically enough some kind of essential perception, then sure, maybe in this hypothetical ether there is no room for grand narratives.

But why does this universe have to exist? If I view time through a vertical ontology as opposed to a horizontal one, if I see time as something which grows rather than passes, then I am no longer some helpless intellectual, instead I suddenly become the steward of this new hypernatural spectrum that we call tomorrow.

And if that's the case, then there's nothing simulated about it, it's just a blueprint of determination. It's true because I make it true, because I may charter the universe according to my agency. Vi veri universum vivus vici, etc...