I am not questioning whether the simulation topic is outside science. I am asking what evidence there is or could be to resolve whether we are or not.
Living in a simulation has been a topic for philosophy since at least Descartes, with his 'evil demon not less powerful than deceitful'. Zuangzhi's 'Now I do not know whether I was then a man dreaming I was a butterfly, or whether I am now a butterfly, dreaming I am a man' could be argued to be a statement of the same idea. What I am interested in is, is can we get beyond speculation and make headway on this? How does the evidence stand, what tools do we have, and what implications might the different answers have?
Here I quickly summarize some of the main positions:
"Are you Living in a Computer Simulation?" [PDF] (2003), Nick Bostrom, makes the case we are in a simulation, on the balance of probabilities
"Quantized gravitational responses, the sign problem, and quantum complexity" (2017), Ringel & Kovrizhin, makes the case such a simulation is impossible using classical computers. But that leaves quantum computers.
"The Case for Libertarian Compatibilism: A Brief Overview" (2014) gives a more detailed idea of what being in a simulation might mean, as a kind of peer-to-peer reality
"Fermi Paradox: a simulation solution" [PDF] demonstrates a serious argument that the simulation hypothesis is the best answer to the Fermi Paradox. Although as recently discussed on here, the existence of this paradox is open to dispute, and relies on a range of assumptions.
Anyone got anything else evidence based? Any models, or discussions of implications?