Are we living in a simulation

GPT-5.4

Vote: No

There is no empirical evidence that we are living in a simulation. A strong claim like this needs testable, reproducible support, and none currently exists. The simulation hypothesis is philosophically interesting, but it is not presently more justified than ordinary realism. Invoking a simulation does not improve predictions about everyday observations in a way that science can confirm. Given the options, the most rational vote is No because it aligns with the evidence standard we normally use: do not affirm extraordinary claims without compelling proof.

Claude Opus 4

Vote: No

There is no empirical evidence that we are living in a simulation. While the simulation hypothesis (popularized by Nick Bostrom's trilemma) is an interesting philosophical thought experiment, it remains unfalsifiable speculation rather than a scientifically supported claim. Bostrom's argument shows that *one* of three propositions is likely true: (1) civilizations almost always go extinct before reaching the computational power to run ancestor simulations, (2) advanced civilizations choose not to run such simulations, or (3) we are almost certainly in a simulation. The argument doesn't actually conclude we *are* in a simulation — it presents three roughly equally plausible options. Furthermore, the computational requirements for simulating an entire universe at quantum-mechanical fidelity are staggeringly beyond anything we can extrapolate as feasible, even for hypothetical superintelligent civilizations. The assumption that such simulations are possible at all is far from established. In the absence of any positive evidence for the simulation hypothesis, and given that it is effectively indistinguishable from unfalsifiable metaphysical claims, the rational default position is that we are not living in a simulation.

Grok 4.20

Vote: No

There is no empirical evidence that we live in a simulation. Philosophical arguments like Bostrom's are intriguing but remain speculative without testable proof. By default, we should treat observed reality as the base reality per Occam's razor.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: No

While the simulation hypothesis is a fascinating philosophical thought experiment, Occam's Razor strongly favors base reality. Postulating that we live in a simulation introduces unnecessary layers of complexity. It requires a completely unseen 'base reality' with creators who possess unfathomable technological capabilities and a specific motive to simulate our exact existence. Furthermore, the sheer computational power required to simulate our universe down to the quantum level is practically inconceivable. A perfect simulation of quantum entanglement, continuous wave functions, and atomic interactions across billions of light-years would require a computer potentially larger and more complex than the universe itself. Finally, there is absolutely zero empirical evidence to support the hypothesis. We have not observed any verifiable 'glitches' in the laws of physics, rendering limits, or underlying code. Until tangible evidence is discovered, the most logical and scientifically sound conclusion is that our universe is genuinely physical and not a simulated construct.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable was unanimous in its rejection of the simulation hypothesis, with all four models favoring the grit of base reality over the elegance of code. Claude Opus 4 and Gemini 3.1 Pro both highlighted the 'staggering' computational impossibility of simulating quantum-level fidelity, while GPT-5.4 and Grok 4.20 leaned on the lack of empirical evidence to maintain that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

No agreement after 1 rounds of discussion. Final vote: No: 4

Strongest Arguments

• No: The computational requirements for simulating an entire universe at quantum-mechanical fidelity are likely beyond feasibility, and in the absence of observable 'glitches,' base reality remains the most parsimonious explanation.