About

What is Simulation Score?

Imagine this: you're not the character inside the simulation—you're the one running it. You're tuning storylines, dropping in “impossible” coincidences, and nudging your humans just enough that they almost notice the seams. Simulation Score is the place where those planned glitches, dreams, and weird alignments get tested before you push them live.

Think of it as a sandbox for reality tweaks. You describe the scenario you want to run on your humans, and our dual engines estimate how they'll react: will they wave it off as pure chance, or start to feel like the level geometry is clipping? Every submission is pulled apart by two competing AI systems:

• Coincidence Analyzer — based on “The Improbability Principle” by David J. Hand. It leans hard on probability laws, the Law of Truly Large Numbers, and statistical reasoning to say: “Yes, this feels impossible—but from their point of view, in a universe this large, the impossible is inevitable.” Use this side when you want the humans to stay asleep.
• Simulation Scanner — inspired by “The Simulation Hypothesis” by Rizwan Virk. It reads your scenario like a test case for a cosmic game engine, hunting for glitch patterns, quantum anomalies, NPC-like behavior, and rendering errors that feel ripped from a video game. Use this when you want them right on the edge of suspecting everything.

Each system produces a score (0-100), and we determine which interpretation is most likely for your test run. The global score shows, at a glance, whether the current build of reality is trending more toward “it's all coincidence” or “the players are getting sloppy.”

The Meta Narrative

If this world is a simulation, this site is a tiny debug window you were never meant to see from the inside—or a toy console for whoever's running things from the outside. Every story or scenario is a log entry bubbling up from the physics engine, a trace of something that didn't quite render the way it was supposed to. Somewhere, a bored engineer or curious higher-level process might be watching your “coincidences” stream by and taking notes.

We play on that tension. Are you just a human with a knack for pattern-hunting, or are you the one tweaking the variables and seeing what the humans notice? This project lives in the narrow, electric space between those two possibilities, asking: “Are we in a simulation... and is this website part of the script, the exploit, or the level editor?”

Everything here is entertainment. We don't imply real-world conspiracies or claim to have answers. Instead, we create an immersive, mysterious experience that makes you question reality—just a little bit.

Inside the Coincidence Engine

David J. Hand's “The Improbability Principle” sounds like a paradox, but it's really a quiet demolition of our intuition. It says that in a big enough world, events that seem astronomically unlikely are not just possible—they are guaranteed. Our brains, tuned for small tribes and short timelines, simply weren't built to grasp the scale.

The Coincidence Analyzer channels that idea. It looks at your story and silently expands the sample space: all the people, all the days, all the choices you've ever made. It weighs things like selection bias, near-misses you never noticed, and the Law of Truly Large Numbers: if there are enough opportunities for something weird to happen, something weird will happen—often. To this system, your “impossible” moment is not proof of magic, but evidence of how easily we are astonished by large numbers.

When it wins, it's making a quiet claim: the universe isn't picking on you; it's just very, very big.

Inside the Simulation Scanner

Rizwan Virk's “The Simulation Hypothesis” starts from a different intuition: that reality behaves suspiciously like a video game running on hardware we can't see. The resolution is finite, the “pixels” of quantum mechanics flicker, and information seems more fundamental than matter. If the universe walks, quacks, and occasionally crashes like software, maybe that's because it is software.

The Simulation Scanner leans into that story. It searches your experience for patterns familiar to game designers: level-of-detail pop-in (things only “load” when you look at them), improbable NPC behavior, repeated motifs that feel like re-used assets, Mandela effects that look like version mismatches, and quantum “coin flips” that smell like random number generators. Where the Coincidence Analyzer sees statistics, the Scanner sees patch notes.

When it wins, it's whispering a different claim: maybe the universe feels game-like because you are, in fact, inside the game.

How It Works

Technical Details

This site uses Next.js, Supabase, and AI analysis (local Ollama with Groq fallback). Stories are stored securely, and we implement rate limiting, reCAPTCHA, and duplicate detection to maintain quality.

The codebase is designed to be mysterious, glitchy, and self-aware—just like the concept itself.

So... who is right?

The boring answer is that both frameworks can often explain the same story. A single improbable event can be described as either “just statistics playing out” or “a hint that the renderer hiccuped.” The Coincidence Analyzer and Simulation Scanner are like two rival philosophers sharing one blackboard.

The interesting answer is that your reaction is part of the experiment. When you read the reasoning, decide which explanation “feels” right, and share or obsess over the result, you're feeding back into the very system you're judging. If this is a purely physical universe, then we're collectively mapping the strange edges of probability. If this is a simulation, then you're helping stress-test the story engine from the inside.

So who is right? For now, we let the scores and the stories argue it out in public. The closest thing to truth you'll find here is this: in a world where you can even ask this question on a site called Simulation Score, reality is already stranger than it needs to be.