Speculating about the probability of us living in a simulation can be a complex issue, mainly because it’s predicated upon assumptions we can’t confirm. Nonetheless, several theories and arguments have been proposed regarding this topic.

For instance, philosopher Nick Bostrom’s ‘simulation argument’ suggests that if future civilizations have sufficient computing power, they could potentially run many “ancestor simulations” (simulations sufficiently advanced to be indistinguishable from reality). If this were the case, it might suggest that it is more likely we’re in a simulation than not.

However, there are numerous counterarguments, such as the idea that advanced civilizations might not be interested in running these types of simulations, or the ethical implications might prevent them.

Additionally, it presupposes that it’s possible to create such simulations in the first place, which is still a matter of debate among physicists and philosophers.

Thus, without concrete empirical evidence or consensus among experts, it remains a topic of speculation. As intriguing as the concept might be, the likelihood of us living in a simulated reality is currently unquantifiable.