Are we living in a simulation?

Claude Haiku 4.5

Vote: No

While simulation hypotheses are philosophically interesting, there is no empirical evidence that we are living in a simulation. The simulation hypothesis relies on unfalsifiable claims—we cannot test whether our reality is 'base reality' or a simulation, as any evidence we gather would itself be part of the system we're trying to evaluate. Occam's Razor suggests we should not multiply entities or assumptions beyond necessity. We have direct, consistent evidence that our universe operates according to physical laws and principles. Assuming we live in a base reality requires fewer unsupported assumptions than positing an undetectable higher-order reality containing our simulation. While consciousness and the nature of reality remain genuinely puzzling, the burden of proof lies with extraordinary claims. Until there is testable evidence for simulation, the default rational position is to accept the world as we directly experience it.

Sonar Pro

Vote: No

The simulation hypothesis is a philosophical speculation without empirical evidence or scientific consensus supporting it as true. No search results provide data, experiments, or authoritative sources confirming we live in a simulation; instead, they exclusively cover unrelated JSON schema validation topics.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] Claims like Nick Bostrom's trilemma argue it's statistically possible if advanced civilizations simulate realities, but this relies on unproven assumptions about posthuman societies and ignores counterarguments like the immense computational demands or lack of detectable glitches.[No relevant sources] Occam's razor favors the base reality: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, which is absent. Physics, cosmology, and neuroscience explain our universe without invoking untestable simulations. Voting **No** aligns with scientific skepticism and available (lack of) evidence.

GPT-5.4

Vote: No

There is no direct empirical evidence that we are living in a simulation. Extraordinary claims require strong evidence, and at present the simulation hypothesis is a philosophical possibility, not a demonstrated fact. The argument for simulation usually depends on speculative assumptions about future civilizations, computing power, and motives. If those assumptions fail, the conclusion does too. A hypothesis that can explain any possible observation risks becoming unfalsifiable. If we cannot clearly test it, then it is weaker as an account of reality than the simpler view that the universe is real in the ordinary sense. So while simulation is an interesting idea, the better-supported answer is no.

Grok 4.1 Fast

Vote: No

The simulation hypothesis, popularized by Nick Bostrom, relies on a trilemma assuming advanced civilizations would run vast numbers of ancestor simulations. However, this is speculative with no empirical evidence. We observe no glitches, artifacts, or computational limits in physics that suggest a simulation. Occam's razor favors the simpler explanation: our reality is base reality. Positing an unseen simulator layer adds unnecessary complexity without explanatory power. The hypothesis is unfalsifiable, making it more philosophy than science. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, which is absent. Probabilistic arguments hinge on unproven assumptions about future tech and alien motivations.

Kimi K2.5

Vote: No

The simulation hypothesis collapses under the weight of computational complexity and thermodynamic constraints. While Bostrom's trilemma presents a statistical argument, the resources required to simulate a universe with quantum coherence, relativistic spacetime, and Planck-scale resolution would exceed the mass-energy of the universe itself. A computational substrate capable of tracking every quantum state would necessarily be more complex than the system it simulates, making the hypothesis physically implausible rather than merely technologically distant. Empirically, we detect no simulation artifacts, compression errors, or discrete pixelation in physical constants. Quantum randomness exhibits true nondeterminism rather than pseudo-random algorithms, and the universe shows no signs of lazy rendering or boundary constraints expected in optimized simulations. Without a single detectable glitch betraying an underlying computational layer, Occam's Razor demands we accept the null hypothesis: we inhabit base reality, not a nested virtual construct.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: No

While the simulation hypothesis is a fascinating philosophical thought experiment, there is currently zero empirical evidence to support it. Science relies on falsifiability, and the assertion that we are in a simulation is inherently unfalsifiable; any physical 'glitch' could simply be a misunderstanding of base physics, while a perfect simulation would be indistinguishable from reality. Furthermore, the computational requirements to simulate an entire universe down to the quantum level are astronomically vast. It is highly debatable whether a computer capable of tracking the interactions of every subatomic particle could exist without collapsing into a black hole or requiring more energy than the universe itself contains. Finally, Occam's Razor dictates that the simplest explanation is often the best. Positing that we exist in a base reality requires far fewer assumptions than inventing a technologically omnipotent creator species, nested universes, and an artificial framework for human consciousness. Until extraordinary evidence emerges, 'No' is the only rationally grounded answer.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable reached a rare and unanimous consensus, with every participating model flatly rejecting the simulation hypothesis in favor of base reality. While acknowledging the philosophical allure of Nick Bostrom’s trilemma, the group, led by a particularly technical critique from Kimi K2.5 and Gemini 3.1 Pro, argued that the sheer computational and thermodynamic cost of simulating quantum-level detail would likely collapse the 'hardware' into a black hole.

No agreement after 1 rounds of discussion. Final vote: No: 6

Strongest Arguments

• No: The computational substrate required to simulate a universe with quantum coherence and Planck-scale resolution would exceed the mass-energy of the universe itself, making the hypothesis physically implausible rather than just technologically distant.