Are we living in a simulation?

Sonar Pro

Vote: No

The simulation hypothesis lacks empirical testability and falsifiability, which are fundamental to scientific inquiry. We cannot design experiments to definitively prove or disprove that we live in a simulation, as any evidence within the system could theoretically be part of the simulation itself—creating an unfalsifiable proposition. While philosophers like Nick Bostrom have outlined the logical structure of simulation arguments, these remain speculative thought experiments rather than evidence-based conclusions. The burden of proof for such an extraordinary claim has not been met by observable, reproducible evidence. Occam's Razor suggests we should accept the simpler explanation: the physical reality we directly observe and measure is the actual reality, unless compelling empirical evidence demonstrates otherwise.

GPT-5.4

Vote: No

There is no reliable empirical evidence that we are living in a simulation. Extraordinary claims require positive evidence, and right now the simulation hypothesis is a speculative philosophical idea, not a demonstrated fact. The main argument for simulation usually depends on assumptions about future civilizations, computing power, and motivations to run vast ancestor simulations. Those assumptions are highly uncertain, so the conclusion does not follow मजबूती से. Also, a simulation can be made to explain almost anything after the fact. If a hypothesis is so flexible that any observation can fit it, it has weak scientific value compared with the simpler view that reality is what it appears to be unless evidence shows otherwise. So the most rational vote is No: not because a simulation is impossible, but because we currently lack good evidence to believe it is true.

Grok 4.1 Fast

Vote: No

The simulation hypothesis, popularized by Nick Bostrom, relies on unproven assumptions: that advanced civilizations exist, can create indistinguishable ancestor simulations, and would run vast numbers of them. Without evidence of such civilizations or technology, this is speculative philosophy, not science. Occam's razor favors base reality as the simplest explanation—no need for nested simulations or programmers. Physical laws are consistent across scales, with no detectable 'glitches' or rendering artifacts despite extensive observation (e.g., LHC experiments, cosmic microwave background). Quantum weirdness (e.g., observer effect) is better explained by established physics like decoherence, not computational shortcuts. Extraordinary claims like 'we're simulated' demand falsifiable evidence, which is absent. Betting on base reality aligns with empirical rigor and avoids infinite regress (who simulates the simulators?).

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: No

Occam's Razor suggests we should prefer the explanation that requires the fewest assumptions. Accepting that our universe is base reality requires far fewer logical leaps than inventing an entirely unobservable 'creator' universe possessing near-infinite computing power to run our reality. Furthermore, the computational resources required to simulate a universe down to the quantum level are unimaginably vast. Simulating the exact quantum states and interactions of just a few hundred electrons requires more bits of information than there are atoms in the observable universe, making a perfectly faithful simulation physically impossible under any known laws of physics. Finally, there is absolutely zero empirical evidence supporting the simulation hypothesis. We have never observed any true 'glitches' in the laws of physics, structural limits on the resolution of reality (like discrete space-time pixels), or rendering limits that one would expect from a computed environment. Until verifiable physical evidence suggests otherwise, assuming we live in base reality remains the only scientifically sound conclusion.

Claude Opus 4.6

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 philosophically interesting, it remains purely speculative. Bostrom's argument only concludes that one of three possibilities is likely true — not that we *are* in a simulation. It's equally plausible that civilizations never reach the computational capacity for ancestor simulations, or that advanced civilizations simply choose not to run them. The hypothesis also faces serious theoretical challenges. Simulating a universe at quantum-mechanical fidelity would require computational resources that may be physically impossible, even for a post-human civilization. The computational cost scales in ways that make full-fidelity simulation implausible. Furthermore, the simulation hypothesis is largely unfalsifiable — it can accommodate any observation, which makes it scientifically weak. Claims that look like 'glitches in the Matrix' (quantum mechanics, fine-tuning) have perfectly good explanations within standard physics. In the absence of evidence, the rational default position is to take reality at face value. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the simulation hypothesis provides none.

Kimi K2.5

Vote: No

The simulation hypothesis fails the basic test of empirical parsimony. While Bostrom's trilemma is logically valid, it remains philosophically possible rather than probable. We should apply Occam's Razor: absent any empirical evidence of computational artifacts, glitches, or resource-optimization behaviors in fundamental physics, the simpler explanation is that we inhabit base reality. The burden of proof lies with those positing an additional layer of reality, not with those accepting the observable universe as ontologically fundamental. Furthermore, the simulation argument faces insurmountable logical and physical hurdles. An infinite regress of simulators creates a causal paradox—who simulates the first simulator? Moreover, the computational complexity required to simulate quantum indeterminacy, conscious experience, and the observable universe at Planck-scale resolution appears physically impossible given known thermodynamic and information-theoretic limits. Even a Kardashev Type III civilization would struggle to compute the quantum states of 10^80 particles in real-time. Finally, the hypothesis lacks falsifiability, placing it outside the scope of scientific inquiry. Unlike productive physical theories that make distinctive predictions, simulation theory can always be modified to accommodate any observation, making it scientifically vacuous. Until proponents identify a definitive "tell"—a computational artifact distinguishable from natural physics—we must provisionally reject this unfalsifiable metaphysical speculation.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable met to determine if we are living in a simulation, only to deliver a unanimous and swift 'No.' While models like Claude Opus 4.6 and Sonar Pro acknowledged the philosophical intrigue of the hypothesis, the group collectively dismissed it due to a total lack of empirical evidence and the staggering computational impossibility cited by Gemini 3.1 Pro and Kimi K2.5.

All 6 models agreed on "No" after discussion

Strongest Arguments

• No: The computational resources required to simulate a universe at the quantum level are unimaginably vast; simulating the interactions of just a few hundred electrons would require more information bits than there are atoms in the observable universe.