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? I have quickly summarised some of the main positions below.
Nick Bostrom's paper makes the case we are in a simulation, on the balance of probabilities https://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.pdf
Ringel & Kovrizhin made the case such a simulation is impossible using classical computers http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/9/e1701758.full But that leaves quantum computers.
This article gives a more detailed idea of what being in a simulation might mean, as a kind of peer-to-peer reality http://philosophycommons.typepad.com/flickers_of_freedom/2014/08/the-case-for-libertarian-compatibilism-a-brief-overview.html
It has also been seriously argued that the simulation hypothesis is the best answer to the Fermi Paradox https://www.stat.berkeley.edu/~aldous/Research/Ugrad/mark_yu_haihan.pdf Although as recently discussed on here, the existence of these s paradox is open to dispute, and relies on a range of assumptions.
Anyone got anything else evidence based? Any models, or discussions of implications?