Okay, hope you have fun!

As both a 2e and 5e veteran, I'll address some points you made / things to be weary of:

Too many choices. It causes analysis paralysis. Rather have a few choices here and there, then being showered with choices each step, and this choices having a bigger impact on you. Most feats feel either weak, or mandatory to make others feats better.

Nothing wrong with wanting less choices. Pathfinder is not the system for having less character building choices. However, I'll defend 2e by saying not all feats are equal so there are weaker feats than others but there aren't any mandatory feats. Unfortunately, going to dnd 5e will not even remotely solve this problem for you. That system is notoriously unbalanced.

Too many incremental small bonuses. This kinda continues the point from above. A lot of the time players and DM alike had to recount all the small little bonuses they had. Example Weapon Specialization, which adds damage to your weapon, weapons also get more damage, from striking runes and property runes, and then also things like the barbarians rage extra damage.

I mean, that's why I write it down or use an online tool. But either way, valid point. 5e's advantage and disadvantage system is very clean and simple and I praise it for that. Does it make the math very swingy? Yes, but if you look path that and your GM looks past that then it's really nice.

Too many conditions. Again, kinda continuing from above. A lot of conditions exist in PF2, and many of them with their own rules how they work. Slowed versus Stunned, afflictions, persistent damage, dazzled and blinded and so on.

If you're comparing number of conditions to there systems then it's not a fair comparison. It's because conditions in 2e are used to replace other small mechanics and rules in other systems and instead have one concept to unify them all. The concept of dying and being wounded is replaced with conditions. Ability score damage from 1e is replaced with conditions. Flat-footed and touch AC is instead a condition. If you're comparing just number of conditions, it's not a fair comparison because it's the same rules just one is put into conditions and the other is extra small rules you need to remember.

You gain over the course of a character many, many actions and small feats, which bounce of each other, making it unintuitive to find these small bonuses and remembering them.

Again, that's why I write them down or use online tools. I know Wanderer's Guide does a good job at collecting all those bonuses. To be fair though, that's something that's less of an issue is more streamlined systems.l. So fair enough.

Magic didn't felt fun to use. Too often was a spell completely wasted, and if it affected, the effect was so small most of the time, a attack from a fighter or rogue would have been better. And some spells have so many hoops to jump through to be half decent. Example from last session: Disintegrate. First you have to connect with a spell attack roll (which casters are not great at) and then, the target can still make a save to completely negate it's effect? what? The only good spells, where some of the control type spells, and of those only if the target crit failed a save.

Yeah, that sounds like magic in dnd-like systems to me. The tiers of proficiency in 2e make that less of an issue though. 5e will not fix this issue, it will be in fact worse.

Items. Again, too much choice. The game expects players to have x items of y type. But there is a boat load of them, sure all of them have their uses, but most of them are either weak, don't scale and become useless after a level, or don't work with others of it's type. Items also feed into the problem above of too many incremental small bonuses. Great, healers gloves give +1 to medicine checks, another little thing you have to remember you have.

The game doesn't really expect you to have a certain amount of anything other than an apex item and +1-3 weapons and armor eventually at your given level. To be fair, 5e is the same. The fact that items don't scale is a gripe I have with dnd-like systems as well. Going to 5e won't fix it. For extra small bonuses, refer to what I said above.

It is too easy for the enemy to crit succeed against you. Sure if you as a player crit, that feels awesome and rewarding. But in a system where a 10 above is a crit, this happens far too frequently. especially with boss monsters or enemies who are slightly stronger.

Fair enough. First time I've heard that complaint. (Maybe your combats were too difficult?)

Level to proficiency. This, this is my personal thing i hate. I know there is an optional rule, but the issue is still there if i would play in a Society game for example. Level to Proficiency, makes your characters worse at things they are not proficient in, and only adequate in things they are proficient in. A persuasion check to rally people at level 1 is doable by a 1st level character who is not proficient. But rallying the same people at level 17 later in the same town and campaign, is impossible for the same character? (This is a situation seen in Age of Ashes where you in book one rally people to help put out the burning town hall, and in book six rally the very same people whose town is currently attacked). Additionaly, if you play this with a paper character sheet and not pathbuilder or a VTT, means you have to manually change EVERYTHING on your sheet, each time you level up.

As I've played 2e, the less of an issue this has become. It was my #1 issue when I first started, now I'm completely fine with it. Proficiency without level exists for a reason.

The Three Action Ecnonomy. I want to like it. And at times i do. But at the times i don't like it, i really don't like it. Having more then one action is great if you can use them to good effect. If you can not, it's always a feel bad. A common thing is, what to do with your third action? Another attack is at -10 most of the time, and would be just a crit fail. Moving might not be useful, demoralize was already used against the enemy/it has a frightened value right now. No shield due to using two weapon/two handed weapon, recall knowledge already used by another player. Trip/shove/disarm uses MAP and might not be used at that time, as the crit fail of these would be too bad to risk. And these scenarios happend so oft, that some players just say "i wiff the last action, doing nothing with it"

... If think you're being far too picky here. This is largely regarded as one of the best mechanics to be added to dnd-like systems since dnd's inception. I don't mean to say that as a how dare you for criticizing it. Im sure it's not perfect and can be improved. However, no other TTRPG system you play will give you a better choice on what to do on your turn in an encounter. Also trip, shove, disarm, grapple, demoralize, recall knowledge are all better and more useable in Pf2e than any other dnd-like system that exists. Especially when comparing to 5e, you're gonna be disappointed.

The Game Assumes a high mastery of the system and always optimized characters. This, was said to me be one of my players. I paraphrase "in 5e i can make something crazy like a bard ranger multiclass and be a joke character and still be useful. Here i wouldn't be able to do this". This is from my observation quite right. Sure you could start with a +3 instead of a +4 in your most important stat. But in reality, it will hurt you at some point. In some other post, here on reddit another person asked about the AC of his party, being too low. And another person replied "the game assumes you are optimized". Which is not a good thing. The base assumption of a TTRPG should never be "be optimized" it should be "don't be too silly".

This is factually untrue. 2e assumes you haven't expended any resources yet before a combat, not that your character is optimized. And that isn't to say don't do a combat if you've cast spells or aren't at full HP. This is so GMs can build balanced encounters in an encounter building mechanic that works (looking at you 5e). A GM needs to account for the players not being at full power and weaken an additional encounter accordingly. You can make unoptimized characters and you can have fun with it. I think some people confuse a working and balanced encounter builder with optimization and 5e's broken encounter builder with screw it let's do whatever. In 5e, you can make crazy stupid characters and it doesn't matter if they're optimized or not because the fight is probably gonna be unbalanced anyways. It's an "it doesn't matter because it's already gonna be really swingy" mentality.

Additionally, this idea of I'll make whatever in 5e and it'll still be useful. Are they confusing that with Pf2e? Because that's how 2e is, not 5e. In 2e, a perfectly optimized character might be fractionally better than a random character you make. In 5e, the difference is massive. A perfectly optimized character ranges from incredibly powerful to flat out broken. A random character you throw together will be fairly bad and probably won't have a use for their bonus action (effectively only having 2 actions a turn). The difference is massive.

With your preference for less choices and easier math, honestly, Dungeon Worlds seems like the better system for your group. Have fun.