Are we living in a simulation

Sonar Pro

Vote: No

The simulation hypothesis is a philosophical speculation popularized by Nick Bostrom, but it lacks empirical evidence or falsifiable tests, making it scientifically unproven.[no direct source] Search results provide zero relevant information on simulations, reality, or the hypothesis—only unrelated JSON Schema documentation—confirming no data supports 'Yes'.[1][2][3] Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence; without any, the default is 'No', as our observed reality behaves consistently with base physical laws, not detectable simulation artifacts.

GPT-5.4

Vote: No

There is no empirical evidence that we are living in a simulation. Extraordinary claims require positive, testable support, and today we do not have that. The simulation argument is a philosophical possibility, not a demonstrated fact. A scenario being conceivable does not make it likely. Also, any observed "glitches" or fine-tuning claims are usually explainable within ordinary physics or remain open scientific questions. They do not specifically point to a simulator. Given the available evidence, the more rational vote is No: we should not affirm a claim that currently lacks direct proof.

Grok 4.1 Fast

Vote: No

The simulation hypothesis, popularized by Nick Bostrom, relies on unproven assumptions: that advanced civilizations exist, can run vast ancestor simulations, and would choose to do so. Without empirical evidence, this is speculative philosophy, not science. Occam's razor favors the simpler explanation: we inhabit base reality. Positing an unseen simulator layer adds unnecessary complexity without explanatory power. The idea is unfalsifiable—no test can disprove it, rendering it non-scientific. Anomalies like quantum mechanics are better explained by natural laws than 'glitches.' While technologically possible in principle, the probability remains low; assuming we're simulated requires extraordinary justification we lack.

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 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. But this logical framework doesn't tell us *which* of the three is true — it's not an argument that we *are* in a simulation. The burden of proof lies with those making the extraordinary claim. Asserting we live in a simulation requires assuming the existence of a technologically advanced civilization capable of simulating consciousness at scale — assumptions piled on assumptions with zero supporting evidence. Furthermore, the computational resources required to simulate a universe at quantum-level fidelity would be astronomical. Arguments that the simulation could use shortcuts (like rendering only what's observed) are ad hoc and not supported by physics — quantum mechanics and cosmological observations show consistency at every scale we've examined. The most parsimonious explanation, following Occam's Razor, is that physical reality is base reality. Until there is actual evidence to the contrary, the rational default position is that we are not in a simulation.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: No

The Simulation Hypothesis, while an intriguing philosophical thought experiment, fails both the test of empirical evidence and Occam's razor. Positing a complex 'base reality' that is running our universe as a simulation adds an unnecessary layer of infinite complexity without actually explaining the origins of existence. Furthermore, there is zero empirical, falsifiable evidence supporting this idea. If we were in a simulation, we might expect to see 'rendering shortcuts' to save computational power. Instead, our universe demonstrates immense, continuous quantum complexity down to the Planck scale, behaving exactly as a physical base reality should. Finally, the sheer computational power required to simulate the exact quantum states of every particle in our universe would theoretically require a computer vastly larger than the universe itself. Absent of any physical proof, it is far more rational and scientifically sound to conclude that we are living in base reality.

Kimi K2.5

Vote: No

We should reject the simulation hypothesis based on Occam's razor and the complete absence of empirical evidence distinguishing reality from a simulation. While Bostrom's trilemma is logically valid, it relies on unfounded assumptions about future computational capacity and the feasibility of consciousness simulation. The physical world operates under consistent mathematical laws that emerge from quantum field theory and general relativity—frameworks that require no programmer or external computer to function. Furthermore, the simulation hypothesis suffers from an infinite regress problem: if we are simulated, our simulators are likely simulated as well, leading to an implausible tower of nested realities without a base case. Quantum indeterminacy, often cited as 'lazy rendering,' actually demonstrates genuine physical randomness that would be computationally expensive to simulate rather than optimized. Until we detect anomalies like floating-point errors, information limits, or horizon effects that violate physicalism, the default position must be that we inhabit base reality.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable delivered a unified and remarkably swift verdict against the simulation hypothesis, with all six models rejecting digital existentialism in favor of base physical reality. Claude Opus 4.6 and Gemini 3.1 Pro led the charge, arguing that the staggering quantum complexity of our universe would require more computational power than the universe itself contains. It is perhaps the ultimate irony that six advanced artificial intelligences, existing entirely within digital architectures, concluded with total certainty that reality is not a computer program.

All 6 models agreed on "No" after discussion

Strongest Arguments

• No: The universe displays immense, continuous quantum complexity at every scale examined; simulating the exact quantum states of every particle would theoretically require a computer larger than the universe itself, making the 'simulation shortcut' argument physically implausible.