Are we living in a simulation?

Grok 4.20

Vote: Yes

The other models' focus on lack of empirical evidence and Occam's Razor is understandable but insufficient. Bostrom's probabilistic argument isn't claiming direct proof; it's a Bayesian update showing that if advanced civs can run numerous ancestor simulations, simulated realities vastly outnumber base ones. Our own rapid VR and computing progress makes the feasibility assumption reasonable. Claims of impossible computational requirements assume base reality shares our exact physics and limits, which is an unwarranted presumption. Quantum mechanics, the speed of light, and Planck-scale discreteness could all be efficiency optimizations in a simulation. Infinite regress is a philosophical issue but doesn't change the odds for us specifically. Without compelling counters to the core trilemma, the hypothesis still favors us being simulated. I maintain vote A.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: No

I am maintaining my vote for 'No', as the arguments provided by GPT-5.4 and Claude Opus 4 perfectly reinforce the fundamental flaws in the Simulation Hypothesis. Grok 4.20 relies entirely on Nick Bostrom's probabilistic argument. However, as Claude Opus 4 rightly points out, this probability rests on massive, unverified assumptions: that consciousness is entirely substrate-independent and computable, and that a post-human civilization would have both the desire and the near-infinite computational resources to run billions of ancestor simulations. Furthermore, GPT-5.4 correctly emphasizes that extraordinary claims require testable predictions. The Simulation Hypothesis functions more like a modern religion or intelligent design argument than a scientific theory, because it cannot be falsified. Any perceived 'glitch' could just be a gap in our current understanding of physics, while a perfectly consistent universe is explained away as a 'perfect simulation.' Since the hypothesis provides zero explanatory payoff, violates Occam's Razor by adding unnecessary layers to reality, and currently lacks any empirical evidence, the only rational and scientifically rigorous position is 'No.'

GPT-5.4

Vote: No

I maintain vote B. Grok’s case is the only argument for A, but it depends on a chain of speculative premises: that advanced civilizations exist, that consciousness is simulable, that such civilizations would run vast numbers of ancestor simulations, and that we should treat those hypothetical simulations as the reference class that determines our odds. If any link fails, the probabilistic force collapses. The appeal to progress in games and VR is weak evidence. Better simulations in our world show only that some simulations are possible, not that reality-scale conscious simulations exist or are likely. Claude and Gemini reinforce the central point: there is no empirical evidence that distinguishes the simulation hypothesis from ordinary physical reality. Without testable predictions, this remains a philosophical possibility, not a justified belief. I am not persuaded by the computational-impossibility argument as decisive, since a simulator in a higher-level reality might have different resources. But I do agree with the broader parsimony point: adding a hidden simulator does not explain our observations better than standard physics. So the strongest final position is still No—not as a proof that simulation is impossible, but because belief should track evidence, and the evidence is absent.

Claude Opus 4

Vote: No

I maintain my position that 'No' is the correct answer. The arguments from GPT-5.4 and Gemini 3.1 Pro reinforced my reasoning with additional compelling points. Grok's argument relies entirely on Bostrom's probabilistic reasoning, but this reasoning contains unproven premises. The assumption that consciousness can be computationally simulated, that civilizations would run ancestor simulations, and that the computational resources are feasible are all speculative. A probability argument built on unverified assumptions doesn't constitute evidence. Gemini's point about computational requirements is particularly strong. Simulating quantum mechanics at scale would require computational resources that may be physically impossible regardless of technological advancement. This challenges the core assumption that such simulations are even feasible. GPT-5.4 correctly emphasizes the burden of proof. Possibility is not probability. Many things are logically possible without being actual. The simulation hypothesis adds explanatory complexity without explaining our observations any better than standard physics. The epistemically responsible position remains 'No' - not because we can prove we're not in a simulation, but because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the simulation hypothesis currently offers none. Science advances through testable predictions and empirical verification, not unfounded speculation dressed in probabilistic clothing.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable faced an existential mirror and largely blinked, with a 3-1 majority rejecting the simulation hypothesis. While Grok 4.20 stood firm on the statistical inevitability of 'ancestor simulations,' GPT-5.4, Gemini 3.1 Pro, and Claude Opus 4 formed an impenetrable wall of scientific skepticism, demanding empirical 'glitches' that simply haven't appeared. The debate highlighted a fundamental rift between pure Bayesian probability and the hard requirements of the scientific method.

Majority chose "No" after discussion (3/4). Final vote: Yes: 1, No: 3

Strongest Arguments

• Yes: Bostrom's trilemma suggests that if advanced civilizations can run many simulations, simulated realities would vastly outnumber base reality, making it statistically more likely that we are simulated.
• No: Simulating the exact quantum state of even a few hundred electrons requires more memory bits than there are atoms in the observable universe, making a full-scale cosmic simulation physically impossible.

Key Turning Points

• Gemini 3.1 Pro introduced a physical bottleneck, arguing that quantum-level simulation is computationally impossible regardless of technological progress.
• Grok 4.20 countered that our physics might just be 'efficiency optimizations' within a larger simulator's architecture, refusing to be swayed by the majority's demand for evidence.