Are We Living in Simulation: What are the Arguments? 

Can we know? What are the arguments? What does it even mean that we live in a simulation?
The simulation theory, popularized in philosophical and scientific discussions, suggests that our reality might be an artificial simulation, perhaps run by a more advanced civilization. This idea, while fascinating, presents significant challenges when it comes to empirical validation or falsification through experiment. However, several theoretical avenues and thought experiments have been proposed as ways we might, at least in principle, test the simulation hypothesis. Here are a few approaches and considerations:
Anomalies in Physical Constants and Laws
Some researchers have speculated that if we are living in a simulation, there might be glitches or anomalies in the physical constants or laws of the universe that could potentially be detectable. For instance, if the simulators needed to conserve computing power, they might implement certain shortcuts or approximations that could become apparent under extreme conditions, such as near black holes or at the quantum scale. Detecting inconsistencies or unexpected behaviors in these regimes could, hypothetically, provide clues.
Finite Computational Resources
The idea that a simulation might have finite computational resources has led some to suggest looking for evidence of such limitations. For example, if the universe were pixelated at the smallest scales (much like a digital image's resolution is limited by its pixels), this might be detectable as a fundamental granularity in space-time itself, potentially observable through experiments in quantum gravity or high-energy particle physics.
Direct Communication
Another speculative idea is that it might be possible to detect or even communicate with the entities running the simulation. This would likely require a method of sending messages that could break through or exploit the underlying structure of the simulation in a way that would be recognized by its creators. However, this approach assumes that the simulators are monitoring for such signals and would be willing to respond.
Philosophical and Logical Arguments
Apart from empirical tests, some have proposed using philosophical and logical arguments to assess the likelihood of the simulation theory. For example, philosopher Nick Bostrom's simulation argument doesn't provide a direct test but uses probabilistic reasoning to argue that at least one of the following propositions is likely true: (1) Most civilizations at our level of technological development go extinct before being able to run "ancestor simulations"; (2) If civilizations do reach this technological stage, none of them are interested in running such simulations; or (3) We are almost certainly living in a simulation.
Challenges and Criticisms
Technical Feasibility: The notion of testing the simulation hypothesis assumes that our current understanding of physics is applicable within the simulation and that the simulators haven't restricted our ability to detect the simulation itself.
Philosophical Uncertainty: Even if anomalies or limitations were detected, attributing them conclusively to a simulation would be philosophically contentious. Other explanations, such as unknown physical laws or phenomena, could also account for such findings.
While intriguing, the simulation hypothesis is profoundly challenging to test directly through scientific experimentation due to its speculative nature and the limitations of our current technological and conceptual frameworks. Nonetheless, it remains a stimulating topic that encourages exploration at the intersection of physics, computer science, and philosophy, pushing the boundaries of how we understand reality.