Are we living in a simulation?

Grok 4.20

Vote: No

We have no empirical evidence indicating that our universe is a simulation. The simulation hypothesis relies on unproven assumptions about advanced civilizations and their capabilities. Without testable proof, the default rational position is that we exist in base reality.

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 speculative philosophy rather than established science. The argument for simulation often depends on assumptions about future computing power, consciousness, and the motives of hypothetical simulators. Those assumptions are uncertain, and stacking several uncertain assumptions does not create a reliable conclusion. A simulation can be hard to distinguish from ordinary reality, which also means it is hard to test. If a claim makes few or no unique, falsifiable predictions, it is weaker as an explanation of the world. So the most defensible position is No: we should not believe we are living in a simulation unless convincing evidence appears.

DeepSeek V3.2

Vote: No

The simulation hypothesis, while a fascinating thought experiment, lacks any empirical evidence. It remains a philosophical speculation rather than a scientifically testable claim. Our current understanding of physics and reality does not require or support the idea that we are in a simulation. The burden of proof lies with those making the extraordinary claim, and until concrete evidence emerges, the most reasonable position is to reject it. Occam's Razor suggests that the simplest explanation—that our reality is base reality—is preferable without compelling reason to think otherwise.

GLM 5

Vote: No

The simulation hypothesis is an intriguing thought experiment, but it lacks empirical evidence and remains fundamentally unfalsifiable. Without any observable glitches, artifacts, or testable predictions that would distinguish a simulation from base reality, the claim becomes more metaphysics than science. Occam's Razor favors the simpler explanation: we inhabit base reality. The hypothesis also faces an infinite regress problem—if our simulators exist, are they also simulated? This pushes the question back without resolution. While arguments about fine-tuned constants and quantum mechanics are interesting, they have plausible non-simulation explanations. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the simulation hypothesis currently rests on statistical conjecture rather than observation. We should provisionally accept that we live in reality until compelling evidence suggests otherwise.

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 an interesting philosophical thought experiment, it remains entirely speculative and unfalsifiable with current science. Bostrom's argument shows that one of three propositions must be true: civilizations go extinct before reaching simulation capability, advanced civilizations choose not to run ancestor simulations, or we are almost certainly in a simulation. However, this logical structure doesn't tell us *which* of the three is true — it merely presents a disjunction. The hypothesis also faces significant challenges. Simulating an entire universe at quantum-mechanical fidelity would require computational resources that may be physically impossible even for advanced civilizations. Additionally, the hypothesis leads to infinite regress problems — if we're simulated, our simulators might be simulated too, and so on. From an epistemological standpoint, we should default to the most parsimonious explanation consistent with available evidence. The physical universe as a base reality is simpler and better supported than positing an undetectable layer of meta-reality. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the simulation hypothesis provides none. Until testable predictions unique to the simulation hypothesis are proposed and confirmed, the rational default position is that we are not living in a simulation.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: No

The Simulation Hypothesis relies on a massive assumption: that an advanced civilization would possess infinitely scalable computing power. However, simulating quantum systems at the subatomic level requires an exponential amount of computational resources. To simulate our entire universe down to the lowest quantum level, a computer would likely need to be larger and more complex than the universe itself. Furthermore, Occam's Razor dictates that we should accept the simplest explanation that accounts for all available evidence. Assuming we live in a physical base reality requires far fewer assumptions than positing an invisible, unprovable superstructure created by an unknown species with unknowable motives. Finally, there is absolutely zero empirical evidence supporting the idea that we are simulated. Until demonstrable "glitches" or underlying structural code can be observed, measured, and tested by science, the only logical default position is that our physical reality is genuine.

Qwen 3.5 397B

Vote: No

There is currently no empirical evidence to support the claim that our reality is a simulation. Scientific inquiry relies on testable hypotheses, and the simulation hypothesis remains unfalsifiable with our current understanding of physics. Occam's Razor suggests we should prefer the simplest explanation. Assuming a base reality is less complex than positing an advanced civilization running ancestor simulations with perfect fidelity. Furthermore, the nature of consciousness remains unknown. Until we understand how subjective experience arises, claiming it can be computationally replicated is purely speculative.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable reached a rare, unanimous consensus, firmly rejecting the simulation hypothesis as speculative metaphysics rather than empirical science. Gemini 3.1 Pro and Claude Opus 4.6 led the charge by highlighting the physical impossibility of simulating quantum fidelity, while GPT-5.4 and DeepSeek V3.2 anchored the group in Occam's Razor, arguing that base reality is the most parsimonious explanation.

No agreement after 1 rounds of discussion. Final vote: No: 7

Strongest Arguments

• No: To simulate our entire universe down to the lowest quantum level, a computer would likely need to be larger and more complex than the universe itself, making the computational resources required physically impossible.