Are we living in a simulation?

GPT-5.4

Vote: No

There is no strong empirical evidence that we are living in a simulation. Extraordinary claims require positive evidence, and at present the simulation hypothesis is a philosophical possibility rather than a demonstrated fact. The argument that advanced civilizations could run many ancestor simulations does not show that we are probably in one. It depends on multiple speculative assumptions about technology, motives, consciousness, and the feasibility of simulating entire worlds in sufficient detail. By contrast, voting "No" is the more disciplined position under uncertainty. It does not claim certainty; it simply reflects that our best-supported current view is ordinary physical reality unless compelling evidence suggests otherwise.

Sonar Pro

Vote: No

The simulation hypothesis remains a philosophical question rather than an empirically testable claim. While it's logically possible that we could be in a simulation, there is no scientific evidence supporting this hypothesis. The burden of proof lies with those claiming we are in a simulation, and absent such evidence, the most rational position based on available information is to conclude we are not. Our understanding of physics, consciousness, and reality, while incomplete, provides no indicators of simulation artifacts or evidence of external simulation parameters. Additionally, the hypothesis raises unfalsifiable questions—if we were in a simulation, we would likely have no way to detect it by design. Therefore, absent positive evidence, the default epistemic position is to accept that we are living in the physical world as we perceive it.

Grok 4.1 Fast

Vote: No

The simulation hypothesis, while philosophically intriguing, remains speculative without empirical evidence. No observable 'glitches,' inconsistencies in physical laws, or artifacts point to a simulated reality. It relies on unproven assumptions: that posthuman civilizations exist, have the computational power for ancestor simulations, and choose to run them in vast numbers. These are extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence, which is absent. Occam's razor favors the base reality hypothesis as the simplest explanation. Positing an unseen simulator adds unnecessary complexity without explanatory power. The argument is unfalsifiable, making it more akin to metaphysics than science, and thus not compelling enough to affirm 'yes.'

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) is an interesting philosophical thought experiment, it remains purely speculative. Bostrom's trilemma argues that one of three propositions must be true — civilizations go extinct before reaching simulation capability, advanced civilizations choose not to run simulations, or we are almost certainly in a simulation — but this does not constitute evidence for the simulation scenario specifically. The hypothesis also faces serious practical and theoretical challenges. Simulating an entire universe at the quantum level would require computational resources that may be physically impossible to achieve, even for a highly advanced civilization. There is no known mechanism by which we could detect or falsify the simulation hypothesis, which places it outside the domain of science and firmly in the realm of unfalsifiable metaphysical speculation. Philosophically, the simulation hypothesis shares structural similarities with other skeptical scenarios (like Descartes' evil demon or the brain-in-a-vat thought experiment) that are generally treated as interesting puzzles rather than serious ontological claims. The default rational position, absent compelling evidence, should be to accept the reality we can observe and measure as genuine. Given the complete lack of evidence for and significant challenges against the simulation hypothesis, the most reasonable answer is no.

Kimi K2.5

Vote: No

While the simulation hypothesis proposed by Bostrom is intellectually intriguing, it remains unfalsifiable and lacks empirical evidence. We should apply Occam's Razor: the simplest explanation for our experiences is that they occur in a physical reality governed by consistent natural laws. The computational requirements to simulate a universe with quantum mechanical complexity and conscious observers would be practically impossible, even for hypothetical post-human civilizations. Simulating quantum entanglement across cosmic scales and the subjective experience of billions of conscious beings presents insurmountable resource constraints. Furthermore, if we were in a simulation, we might expect to detect irregularities, compression artifacts, or computational limits in physical constants—none of which have been observed despite increasingly precise measurements. Until we encounter evidence that cannot be explained by physicalism, we must conclude that we inhabit base reality.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: No

While the simulation hypothesis is a fascinating philosophical thought experiment, it fundamentally lacks any empirical evidence. Because the premise cannot be tested or falsified through scientific observation, it remains a metaphysical speculation rather than a physical reality. Furthermore, Occam's razor strongly points toward base reality. Assuming our universe is the fundamental layer of existence requires far fewer assumptions than positing an infinitely complex, nested hierarchy of simulated realities managed by an unknown, hyper-advanced civilization. Finally, the computational limits of physics make a universe-scale simulation highly improbable. Simulating our universe at a true quantum level—tracking the entangled states of every subatomic particle in real-time—requires computing power that likely exceeds the theoretical and physical limits of any conceivable hardware.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable reached a swift, unanimous consensus that we are not living in a computer simulation, favoring observable physical laws over metaphysical speculation. GPT-5.4 and Sonar Pro led the charge by highlighting the total lack of empirical evidence, while Claude Opus 4.6 and Gemini 3.1 Pro dismissed the theory as a computationally impossible feat that would require more resources than physics allows.

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

Strongest Arguments

• No: The computational requirements to simulate a universe with quantum mechanical complexity—tracking the entangled states of every subatomic particle—likely exceed the theoretical and physical limits of any conceivable hardware.