• home
• about
• new
• essays
• AI
• book

David Christopher Lane, Ph.D, is a Professor of Philosophy at Mt. San Antonio College and Founder of the MSAC Philosophy Group. He is the author of several books, including The Sound Current Tradition (Cambridge University Press, 2022) and the graphic novel, The Cult of the Seven Sages, translated into Tamil (Kannadhasan Pathippagam, 2024). His website is neuralsurfer.com

A Parenthetical Inside Infinity

A Detective Mystery with Mathematical and Scientific Implications

David Lane

A SURPRISE MEETING IN MY OFFICE AT MT. SAN ANTONIO COLLEGE

I wasn't entirely sure why Derrin Saan was so unrelenting in his campaign to have me read his paper. He wasn't just persistent—he was on a full-blown crusade. At one point he even bypassed me entirely and contacted my wife, Professor Andrea Diem at Mt. San Antonio College, as though I could resist Derrin but never Andrea. He emailed me an early draft, then haunted my inbox with the digital equivalent of chain-rattling.

Finally, Derrin himself showed up at my office door, clutching his manuscript as if it were the lost Gospel of Mathematics. Something about his eyes—equal parts desperation and caffeine—disarmed me. Against my better judgment, I abandoned all diplomacy and told him the truth: his paper read like a word salad tossed in a blender without dressing. In short, it was an incoherent mess.

Now, most people would storm out after such a verdict. Derrin didn't. Instead, he nodded gravely, as if my brutal honesty had unlocked some mystical rite of passage. I suggested he try again—slow down, build the argument with more care, maybe invent fewer words that sounded like they came from a Lovecraftian thesaurus

A week later, he returned with a revised version. I braced myself for the same gibberish, only rearranged. But to my astonishment, as I began to read, the text started to work on me—not because it was suddenly “clear,” but because it was so oddly constructed that it fractured the ordinary ruts of my thinking. His peculiar jargon and crooked logic loosened my imagination like a rusty hinge finally creaking open. I wasn't reading a paper so much as slipping into an altered state.

“Good,” I said, “but refine your terms—give me something more crystalline to work with.” And he did. When I finally told him, “This should be published, even if reviewers rip it apart,” I meant it. The real value of Derrin's work wasn't whether it was “correct” (God save us from the tyranny of correctness), but that it cracked open mental vaults we didn't even know we'd locked. Some papers explain; his detonated.

After we submitted it to IntegralWorld, I felt strangely compelled to record an audiobook version—perhaps to capture that slippery effect his words had when spoken aloud. Yet even that wasn't enough. The paper's subterranean provocations soon demanded narrative form, so I drafted a detective story set at Cambridge, where the mystery was not whodunit but what reality itself was trying to say through the text.

Here's the twist: I then fed the entire manuscript into a machine intelligence and, after much coaxing, watched as it curated a surreal tapestry of ideas that transcended both Derrin's original and my critique. What began as “gibberish” ended up liberating me more than any perfectly polished essay ever could.

And that, perhaps, is the point. Some papers don't exist to convince us; they exist to crack us open. They make us argue, object, even roll our eyes—but in the end, they sneak past our defenses and leave us thinking thoughts we didn't know we were capable of. Derrin's paper was one of those rare detonations.

The Story Begins, the Plot Thickens, and the Mind Releases.

OMNISEMA: A CAMBRIDGE CASEBOOK

First-person narrative of Lau Kin-Man, Senior Researcher, Cambridge University

What if reality is not built on laws, but on a boundless reservoir of possibility?

I wrote that sentence to tease a book hardly anyone in my own department has finished. It is also the line someone chalked on the pavement outside my staircase at Trinity the night before the first threat arrived.

1. The corridor of chalk

The Wren Library at night is a cathedral of equations. The glass cases sleep; the river mutters beyond. I sat alone at the long table under Newton's mask with the windows black as unmeasured infinities, and the blackboard I'd wheeled in from the old seminar room looked like the inside of a star map—pale constellations of symbols surrounded by darkness. The corridor of chalk ran in forced perspective—projective geometry masquerading as architecture—toward a vanishing point where my argument either became obvious or insane.

I was reconstructing the ladder I had proposed in The Omnisema: A Void of Everything: Level 0, a plenitude of “what”—Semas—before any rules; Levels 1–5 and beyond, the Syntax that emerges when coexistences of Semas necessitate distinguishability, amplitude, interference, and the entire scaffolding of quantum theory. At Level 16: inflationary bubbles picking local rulebooks, the multiverse as a library of physically legible worlds.

My colleagues had smiled politely and asked about my health.

I rubbed away a section of the board and wrote, large:

A1. Distinction → bit.

A2. Convexity → mixture.

A3. Continuum → manifold.

A4. Sesquilinear amplitude.

A5. Born rule.

A6. POVMs.

A7. Affine processes.

A8. Reversible connectivity.

A9. Local reversibility.

A10. Local tomography.

A11. Tensor product & entanglement.

A12. Purification.

A13. Entanglement graph.

A14. Continuum limit → geometry.

A15. Emergent causality.

A16. Inflationary selection.

Then I drew a thin vertical line through them all and labeled the line Omnisema pressure, as if the sequence of axioms were beads on a spear.

“You're still skewering the universe, then.”

The voice came from the doorway. Sumi Banerjee, brilliant and indolent in equal measure, leaned in with a thermos and a scarf the colour of an argument. Sumi runs the quantum algorithms group in the Centre for Quantum Information at the Cavendish, and is the only person in Cambridge who can write a variational circuit as if she's doodling.

“I can't sleep,” I said.

“Neither can the internet. I brought gyokuro and a scandal.” She slid a printout across the table. An email chain: Google Quantum AI. Subject line: Priority access—Ananke-2 coherence window.

“You weren't supposed to see that.”

“I wasn't supposed to intercept it,” she said, “but the routing went through our federated queue. They're offering you a privilege slot—three hours on Ananke-2 under low-temperature extended coherence. QEC on, custom pulse allowed. 'For exploratory foundational protocols.' That's not a phrase they use on teenagers.”

I stared at the email. Three hours on their newest chip was a benediction in our world. “Why me?”

“Because your book made half the world angry and the other half curious. Because you put a ladder on the internet that started arguments in places that dislike arguments. Because you're Lau Kin-Man and Cambridge still means something. Also because you're a pest about replication.”

“I am a pest,” I agreed.

“Use it,” she said. “But let me write the circuits.”

“Do you believe it?” I asked. “Not the book. The idea at the heart: that the axiomless reservoir exists. That the multiverse is not an extravagance but a necessity forced by Omnisema pressure.”

Sumi's smile was a chord that doesn't resolve. “I don't know. But I'd like the chip to tell us a secret. When it does, we can ask which language it whispered in.”

We booked the slot.

2. Cambridge mornings, Cambridge knives

At breakfast in hall, Geoffrey Hargreaves, Master of Trinity and owner of the most polite contempt in England, buttered his toast and said, “Kin-Man, I see you're to give the Adams Seminar next week. You mustn't frighten the undergraduates.”

“Fear is a cognitive resource.”

“So is tenure. Don't spend it all at once.” He smiled, which in Geoffrey's case always feels like the moment just before an uninsured vase breaks. “I do admire the audacity of your metaphysics. I admire audacity in the young.”

“I'm fifty-two.”

“Then I admire your fitness.”

When he left, Miriam Osei folded into his place. Miriam is a philosopher of physics with a smile that can carry the weight of an argument's last premise. We had taught a course together on Epistemic Structural Realism. She set down a small book: Augustine, Latin in the margins, road-dust of a thousand students.

“You look like a man about to light a fuse,” she said.

“Ananke-2. Three hours. We're going to try something no one will call an experiment.”

“Then call it an investigation.”

“Detective work?”

“Exactly. A detective doesn't prove; a detective reconstructs. A detective infers structure from traces. ESR with fingerprints.”

I told her the plan, watching the steam from my tea make Bayesian claims on the air.

At lunch the email arrived that ended my quiet week. SUBJECT: Concerning 'Omnisema.' The body of the email was a single sentence.

Some doors are not for opening, Dr. Lau.

No signature, no server I could trust. The threat felt like a cliché until I found the chalk outside my staircase later that night, a carefully lettered quotation of my own teaser line and a circle around “boundless.”

The circle was drawn clockwise, then erased counterclockwise, leaving a ghostly double curve—as if a hand had been forced to undo its own emphasis.

3. The first trace

We staged the run at the Cavendish. Google's Ananke-2 sat in California under helium cold and humming, but we had the cloud console, the timing, and the weird courage of a mathematician who has no business touching hardware. Sumi's students gathered like crows. The plan was simple only in the way a chess endgame diagram is simple after you know the solution.

The Omnisema Ladder Protocol—OLP, said aloud like breath leaving the body—wasn't magic. It was a series of circuits designed to mirror my axiomatic sequence:

• Step OLP-A1: Introduce controlled distinguishability by preparing a large family of pseudo-random pure states and their negations in a convex set.

• OLP-A4/A5: Use continuous-parameter interferometric layers to allow amplitude interference and Born-rule readout.

• OLP-A11/A12: Enforce entanglement across error-corrected logical qubits then purify by embedding them in a larger Hilbert space.

• OLP-A13 to A15: Map entanglement to a graph Hamiltonian and watch whether causal cones emerge in the coarse-grained limit.

• OLP-A16: Here, Sumi's idea—introduce a slow, stochastic variation in effective potential across copies of the circuit to simulate inflationary bubble nucleation in distributed Hilbert pockets, then ask whether the outcome statistics separate into clusters as though “laws” had been picked.

“If a ghost leaves fingerprints,” she said, “this is where we dust.”

“You don't believe in ghosts.”

“I believe in unexpected correlations,” she said. “And I believe in your stubbornness.”

We launched.

For the first forty minutes everything looked like a seminar: noise, error syndromes, the small heroism of a qubit that stays coherent longer than it has a right to. Ananke-2's coherence window under the new pulse schedule was obscene; there's a feeling you get when the error-correcting code you trust comes back with a kindness you didn't expect. The students cheered every time a logical qubit returned a fidelity that felt like an apology from physics.

Then, at fifty-seven minutes in, we hit Trace-K.

It appeared in the residuals: a pattern of syndrome agreement across runs that shouldn't correlate. Imagine flipping many coins in two different rooms and discovering that a small subset of coins, while statistically indistinguishable locally, show correlated deviations when your AI compresses the histories. The deviations were tiny; the network had to dig for them like a terrier under a fence. But they were there: a grain, a bias, not explainable by cross-talk or the long arm of temperature drifts.

“What are we seeing?” a student asked.

Sumi zoomed the plot with the concentration of a neurosurgeon. “Residual correlation across decohered histories,” she said. “Not causal. Not classical. It looks like a weakly shared prior between branches.”

“Between branches,” I repeated, tasting the blasphemy. “Everettian bleed.”

The room went quiet like a church trying not to cough.

Miriam arrived twenty minutes later, coat wet from the drizzle, eyes bright. She listened, then leaned against the table.

“I can give you three clever objections to this,” she said. “One: you over-fit. Two: the AI hallucinated structure because all compression schemes hallucinate. Three: human eyes saw the face in the clouds and named it a king. But I can't give you a clean physical mechanism that produces exactly this profile across error-corrected runs in separated instances with recorded phase resets. It isn't nothing.”

“What would you call it?” I asked.

“A trace,” she said. “And a trace is a clue. Keep investigating.”

We reran. The trace came and went, like a star only visible with averted vision.

By the end of the slot we had four independent appearances of Trace-K in distinct sequences. Sumi wrote each as a hash on the board, then circled them.

“Four lousy miracles,” she said, throwing the chalk at the bin with unnecessary force. “It's never the miracles that convince. It's the boredom of replication.”

“We have to replicate,” I said. “Repeatedly. Else no one—”

Sumi's phone buzzed. She read, frowned, held it out. A text from a number that refused to be traced: Stop. Or we will.

“That's two threats in two days,” she said. “Either you've finally become important, or the prank society got bored of cows.”

But when we tried to book fresh time on Ananke-2 the next morning, the slot vanished. Our queue status went from priority to deferred, then to under review by ethics.

“Ethics?” I said.

“A new panel,” Sumi said. “They call it the Concordat on Advanced Inference. Acronym CAIN, which is either charming or unlucky.”

“Who runs it?”

“Cross-institutional,” she said, reading. “Tech companies, government representatives, and faith leaders. 'To ensure that computation at scale does not erode the metaphysical foundations of social cohesion.'”

“I should like to meet the logician who wrote that sentence.”

“You might,” Sumi said. “They've asked to visit.”

4. The Concordat

They came to Cambridge on a day that smelled of wet paper: four people, four different versions of gravitas.

The first was a civil servant named Lionel Shore, in a suit that said he had been trained to be mistaken for the wallpaper. MI5 liaison, though his card said only “Cabinet Office.” The second, Dr. Etta Kim from Google, crisp and competent, a veteran engineer who knew how to look apologetic without saying the words. The third, Father Thomas Keel, an Anglo-Catholic priest with eyes like a well-made knot. The fourth, Professor Salma al-Rami, a mathematician from Oxford whose face I knew from two decades of respectful duels in print.

We met in a windowless room at the Cavendish that seemed designed to keep secrets from sunlight.

Lionel began. “Dr. Lau, we know you value intellectual freedom. You have it. But there are times when the state requests caution.”

“Caution about what? Arithmetic?”

“About inference at scale,” said Salma, interlacing her fingers. “About emergent meaning from indiscriminate computation. Your protocol—OLP—crosses a line for some of us.”

“For whom?” I asked.

Etta hesitated. “For engineers who have to answer when the phone rings. For executives who can smell a culture war. For communities for whom a certain kind of metaphysical statement is not merely theory but blasphemy.”

Father Keel's voice was gentle. “Doctor, your book argues for a plenitude—Omnisema—prior to law. A level at which all possibilities exist, including the possibility that there is no law. You then link this to empirical filters—decoherence, inflation—that carve out local worlds. I respect the creativity. But do you understand what it means for grace if there is no ultimate lawgiver? For conscience, if consciousness is a Sema that decoheres like a coin toss?”

“I argued the opposite,” I said tightly. “That the presence of Semas—irreducible givens—restores dignity to mind. That logic grows under pressure from coexistence, not decree. We built the rules because the world is thick with possibilities. That is not a diminishment.”

Lionel steepled his fingers. “When Google sees a potential for social rupture, when certain leaders—religious and political—are already drafting speeches about profane machines, the state pays attention. We are not here to forbid. We are here to ask what it would cost to slow down.”

“It would cost the truth,” I said. “It would cost the chance to ask the largest question precisely.”

“Precisely,” said Salma. “Kin-Man, look at me. I have fought you elegantly for twenty years. You've now put us in a position where non-specialists will demand a verdict. If you publish, the argument won't be about fidelity curves; it will be about whether the country believes in the soul. Do you want to be the mathematician who makes Parliament vote on metaphysics?”

“Parliament votes on everything except the budget and metaphysics,” I said. “I'm not responsible for other people's panic.”

“Everyone is responsible,” Father Keel said softly, “for the storms their words summon.”

Etta opened her laptop. “There's another practical matter,” she said. “Your Trace-K. Our internal auditors flagged those residuals before you did. We have other teams seeing similar anomalies under different protocols. We do not yet know whether it is a hardware artifact, a control-pulse cross-coupling, or something… interesting. We are not prepared to make public claims that could be construed as saying our chips talk to other universes.”

“Do your chips talk to other universes?” Sumi asked, deadpan.

Etta smiled despite herself. “If they do, legal would like them to stop.”

Lionel folded his hands. “So here is the state's request, Doctor. Share your code privately with CAIN's technical team, hold off public statements, and let us replicate under controlled conditions. In the meantime, perhaps teach.”

“And if I refuse?”

“Then you'll be lionized by people who don't understand you, vilified by people who never read you, and imitated by graduate students in garages. We would prefer a civilized process.”

They left us a document to sign. Sumi looked at me over the top of it and shook her head almost imperceptibly. We didn't sign.

The next day my office was broken into. Whoever did it knew to take the hard drives and not the first editions.

5. Detective work

We went to ground in the only way academics know how: with paper and paranoia. Miriam suggested we treat the entire episode as a detective story. “Name your suspects, list your clues, follow the money. Also, buy a better lock.”

Suspects were an insult to multiplicity: there were too many. A bored student, a rogue engineer, a faction inside CAIN that wanted to discredit me by staging an incident, a zealot who misunderstood me, a colleague who resented me, a hacker who wanted to sell our code, or someone I loved who was trying to keep me safe.

Clues were better. The email server that couldn't be traced was, like most ghosts, too clean. The text to Sumi contained a tell: a ligature in the apostrophe in we'll that suggested a particular mobile keyboard distribution common in a certain country. The chalk circle's erased anticlockwise sweep showed hesitation. The break-in's timing—exactly two hours after we declined to sign—was too precise for coincidence and too sloppy for a state action.

We asked Etta to check whether any of the engineers on Ananke-2 had accessed our run logs outside the normal audit. She checked, then went off the record.

“There were pings,” she said quietly during a walk along the Backs, our breath making impartial fog between us. “Old colleagues. Private invitees to CAIN. People with letters after their names and medals on their mantels. They're not your enemies. They're afraid of what your fans will do if they smell multiverse.”

“I don't want fans,” I said.

“Then stop writing sentences like teasers,” she said with a wicked smile.

Miriam spent a day in the University Computing Service extracting log fragments from my synced account. That night she came to my rooms with a bottle of Bordeaux and a look that meant the bottle was necessary.

“The break-in wasn't your average smash-and-grab,” she said. “They used your own credentials from two months ago. Someone copied your two-factor tokens at the Rutherford lecture when you left your coat on the chair. Their physical entry to your office was just theatre to make you feel unsafe.”

“Does it work?” I said.

“It works,” she said.

We decided to replicate without Ananke-2.

“Impossible,” Sumi said, flipping her pen between fingers. “We don't have anything with that coherence time.”

“We don't need coherence that long if we change the protocol,” I said. “We don't need to build a cathedral; we need to carve one gargoyle properly.”

We rewrote OLP to target the smallest observable that had carried Trace-K: a peculiar cross-correlation in the error-syndrome residuals after purification. Then we did something daring in a University that survives on caution: we asked for help from a company most academics publicly dislike—an AI hardware lab in London that built accelerators to compress models, not to charm philosophers. They owed Sumi a favour and were more amused by the scandal than afraid of it.

We compiled the circuits for their small, noisy superconducting prototype and ran them under controlled noise with Sumi's reinforcement learning agent tuning pulse schedules faster than I could change my mind. The odds of seeing Trace-K on such a device were poor. But when the agent learned to mimic Ananke-2's peculiar cadence, a ghost of the trace appeared.

“Not artifact of Ananke,” Sumi said. “Not just hardware. It's procedural.”

“Procedure is the hidden content of any proof,” I said. “The way through the maze matters, not just the exit.”

We wrote an internal report, encoded our code as if we were smuggling literature through a border, and sent it to twelve people we trusted in twelve different countries at twelve seconds past midnight.

Three hours later, a journalist I once dated phoned to say a dossier was circulating in Westminster alleging that I had tried to build a “machine for contacting demons.” She laughed; I didn't.

6. The apple tree

News moves like a scandal with legs. Students watched me in hall the way people watch the house across the street when an ambulance is parked outside but the blinds are still down. An op-ed in a conservative newspaper called me “another Oxbridge atheist trying to replace God with code.” An op-ed in a liberal newspaper called me “a truth-teller whose work will unsettle the comfortable.” The adjectives were boring; the nouns were dangerous.

A letter arrived, handwritten, folded three times like contrition. We know who you are and what you did to the world. Stop. Or the world stops you.

I took it to Lionel Shore, whom I still refused to hate because he was too human to hate properly. We met under Newton's apple tree, which existed, like so much of Cambridge, because the University knows how to curate myths.

“We can protect you,” he said.

“From what?”

“From dramatists,” he said. “From people who think ideas are knives. From people who like knives.”

“Are you here as the state or as Lionel?”

“As a man who has to read things with grief,” he said.

“Then read this with me,” I said, and handed him our report on Trace-K. He read slowly, lips moving in the way of the well-educated old, then closed his eyes for a moment.

“If this is what it appears, you have two problems,” he said. “One: you've nicked the veil on something too large for a news cycle. Two: half the institutions that keep the country boring will look at this and see apocalypse dressed as mathematics.”

“Boring keeps people alive,” I said.

“It does,” he said. “Can we keep you alive and keep your truth?”

“I won't sign your document,” I said. “And I won't stop. But I will be careful.”

“Be clever instead,” Lionel said. “Clever people live longer than careful ones.”

7. The Principle of the Missing Witness

All detective novels have a chapter where the witness vanishes. In ours, the witness was data.

We had scheduled another overnight run on the London prototype to sharpen Trace-K. At three a.m., Sumi messaged: The server rebooted itself. Twice. Run logs corrupted. Only error: “Clock skew beyond tolerance.”

“Skew?” I replied. “Our NTP servers are obsessives.”

She sent a screenshot. The timestamps in the log danced—minutes repeating, a second appearing twice, a microsecond count flipping sign in the middle of a line as if time had turned inside out and then righted itself.

“Out-of-time behaviour,” I said, my mathematician's reflex more amused than afraid. “Someone spoofed the clocks.”

“Who?” she asked.

“Someone with access to the building and to the nerve to mess with infrastructure.” I thought of the new technician with a laugh like an apology and a badge that seemed too new for his eyes. I thought of the CAIN email headers and their careful anonymity. I thought of Salma's face, honest and hard as a theorem. “Or someone who wants us to think CAIN did it.”

We checked the CCTV for the lab. The video flowed until 02:12:30, then stuttered, then showed an empty corridor where the camera itself like a nervous system blinked. The building's access control claimed no one had entered. We were being treated like amateurs by professionals.

I called Miriam. She arrived with coffee and a copy of a detective novel older than both of us. “Read this,” she said. “Chapter seven. The one in which the writer hides the solution in a footnote.”

The footnote described a method for detecting whether a document had been edited after printing by looking at the distribution of microscopic toner flakes. I laughed despite the hour. “You think our logs have toner flakes?”

“They have their digital equivalent,” she said. “Metadata. Cache write-backs. If they faked the clock at the wall, they might have forgotten the timekeeping done by the NIC card.”

We pulled the network card's auxiliary logs. There they were: timestamps from a secondary oscillator that didn't care about pretty lies. Our runs had occurred; the anomalies in the main log were layered afterward like cheap makeup.

“So someone wants you to look like a fantasist,” Miriam said. “They failed.”

“Or they want us to know that they can fail whenever they like,” Sumi said.

If I had been a better detective, I would have stayed patient. Instead I overplayed: I wrote a preprint.

8. Preprint 2504.13219

It was titled “Syndrome Residual Correlations Across Decohered Histories: A Preliminary Investigation,” which is exactly the kind of title that stops a fire while suggesting there is a dragon. We uploaded at two in the morning and went for a walk along the Cam because walking is the mathematician's only cardio besides chalk-board lunges.

By noon the preprint had a thousand downloads; by evening, twenty thousand. People love dragons.

The reaction at Cambridge was a chorus of eyebrows. Hargreaves called from his office to say that a Council subcommittee would like to meet. I asked which subcommittee. He said that when committees become frightened they forget their own names.

CAIN called too. This time they were not polite.

“You have escalated a sensitive matter into a public frenzy,” Lionel said, not bothering to hide his frustration.

“Sensitive to whom? The voters? The donors? The bishops?” I said. “The paper reports a correlation we have checked to the limit of our patience. It does not claim to talk to other worlds. It asks whether a pattern exists. This is how science works.”

“This is how politics works,” he said, “which is badly. Brace.”

We braced. The internet turned our careful diagrams into memes. Someone dubbed me the Omnisemist. Someone else wrote a ballad. A YouTube priest declared that my circuits were rituals. An atheist influencer made T-shirts that read Semas, not Sin.

Etta called from California, lines under her eyes like parentheses. “I can't keep your slot open,” she said. “I tried. Legal tried. The optics—”

“I understand,” I said.

“But you should know: other teams are seeing Trace-K analogues. Different circuits, same smell. It may be nothing. It may be something that makes us all late for dinner for the next ten years. Either way, you started a fight no one knows how to end.”

“I'm not sorry,” I said. “I'm terrified. But not sorry.”

9. The night of knives

It happened in an alley near Portugal Place, a narrow line drawn between buildings with bad intentions. Sumi had left the lab late and was cutting through the shortcut students use when they want to feel medieval. Two men stepped from a doorway as if they had been waiting since the fourteenth century.

“Professor Banerjee?” one asked, polite as a bad butler.

“I'm not a professor,” she said.

“You are to us. Come.”

She ran. Cambridge is a city built for legs, not engines; she made it to the safety of King's Parade where the CCTV is plentiful and the tourists tomorrow would be grateful for the angles. She came to my rooms shaking like a violin held too close to fire.

“They wanted me to 'come,' Kin-Man. Not to talk. To come.”

“Did you see faces?”

“Covered,” she said. “Voices modulated. They were amateurs pretending not to be. Which is worse, because amateurs don't have rules.”

We reported to Lionel. He went very quiet in the way of men who have learned that their trade is both necessary and indecent.

“This is beyond a culture war,” he said. “This is a small group that believes they are saving souls by intimidating scientists. They are being encouraged by grownups who will later pretend their children learned violence in a vacuum.”

“What do you want from me?” I asked.

“Boredom,” he said. “A week of it.”

“I can't. Not now.”

“Then at least let us watch. And don't walk alone.”

For the first time in two decades, Cambridge felt like a city you had to survive.

10. The proof you don't deserve

In detective fiction there is a moment when the simplest explanation tries on its hat and finds it fits. In ours, that moment arrived not in a lab or a library but in a church.

King's College Chapel was empty except for the verger and an organist practicing the same bar over and over as if to beat it into submission. I sat beneath the fan vaults and tried to remember how to pray. It isn't that I am an atheist. It is that I am greedy: I want the fullest picture, and the silence in churches is very good at drawing borders around greed.

I had brought a notebook. In it I wrote, slowly:

• ESR: we know structure, not things.

• Omnisema: things without rules exist prior to structure.

• Trace-K: a pattern that looks like structure whispering across branches.

Then I wrote a single sentence that made my hands shake.

If Semas are prior to Syntax, cross-branch regularities could arise not from leakage of laws but from shared Semal content.

Translation: if there are irreducible givens—Semas—that exist in all branches merely by being what they are, then decohered worlds might still carry common fingerprints in the places where those givens manifest unmediated by local rules. We look for cross-branch communication in dynamics. Perhaps we should be looking in ontology.

I ran back to the lab, a fifty-two-year-old man sprinting under medieval stone, startling cyclists and pigeons. Sumi swore at me for making her worry, then listened.

“You're saying the residual correlation is not physics whispering between branches but Semas being Semas, and our protocol accidentally aligned with that axis,” she said. “So we should alter the circuit to isolate properties that are Semal under all candidate low-energy laws. Mass, spin, charge… qualia?”

“Not qualia,” I said. “Not yet. But we can target intrinsic properties one at a time. If Trace-K strengthens when we map to a representation that cancels dynamical differences, then we are seeing what you might call Semal pressure. If it vanishes when we entangle away those axes, then it was physics after all.”

“Do we have time?” she asked.

“We have a lifetime,” I said. “Unfortunately, it's the one we're living through.”

She smiled despite the threat maps in her eyes. “Let's build a test you don't deserve to pass.”

We wrote OLP-Sema tests that projected onto axes defined by group-theoretic invariants: total spin magnitude, parity of charge, representations abstract enough that any low-energy rulebook would have to respect them while the Semal content remained untouched. We didn't own Ananke-2. We didn't need it. We needed consistency across noise, not perfection.

We ran all night. At three in the morning, Cambridge sleeps except for foxes and mathematicians.

Trace-K behaved as if it had been waiting for us to ask the right question. When we mapped to the Semal axes, the residual correlation sharpened. When we entangled away those axes, it thinned, as if we had thrown a blanket over the mouth of a spring.

I do not cry over data. That night I did.

Miriam hugged me with the stiff affection of a philosopher who has practiced detachment and then decided it isn't worth it. “You found the edge of your own ladder,” she said.

“Or I wrote a fairy tale too well,” I said through a unmanly nose.

“Even fairy tales have rules,” she said. “You have something better: a clue that fits the crime.”

11. The sermon and the knife

I agreed to debate Father Keel at the Union because I am the sort of man who goes toward fire with a bucket made of words. The hall was full: students, journalists, people who had wandered in because Cambridge is a small town that knows how to produce a spectacle when the river is low.

Keel spoke first, gracious and grave. He said that human beings cannot live on plenitude alone; they need law, and a lawgiver. He said that dignity comes from being made, not from decohering. He said his church had survived every philosophy because it embraced paradox rather than solving it.

I said that I admired paradox but not the habit of binding it to power. I said that our tests suggested, just suggested, that certain givens—Semas—appeared in our world not because a law forced them but because they are what reality has wherever reality is. I said that this did not diminish grace; it gave grace more spaces in which to work.

A student asked whether this meant we lived in the multiverse Everett dreamt of in the 1950s. I said that Ananke-2's hints and our own prototypes' traces were consistent with the idea that many branches exist and that some Semal content leaks through not as dynamics but as fact. I said we were careful. I said we might be wrong.

After the debate a man put a hand on my shoulder. His palm was too flat. His eyes slid left in the reflex of cruelty. “Doctor,” he said. “A word.”

“Not tonight,” I said, and made to leave.

The knife was small, the sort of thing one uses to cut fruit into confessions. It flashed, failed to find an opening in the crowd, and found Sumi's scarf instead. The blade caught wool and a whisper of skin. She swore, louder than the organ at evensong, and the man disappeared into the kind of corridor Cambridge has taught men to use for centuries when they want to commit a sin and be home by dinner.

Lionel materialized like a late angel. “We warned you,” he said, too exhausted for anger.

“I warned me,” I said.

Sumi bled politely on the scarf and told the paramedic she would rather die than go to Addenbrooke's during exam week. I walked home under a sky that looked like an old blackboard, and something in me that believed in gentle processes gave way.

12. Wren, once more

I did what mathematicians do when the world is intolerable: I went to the Wren and made the problem technical.

On the board I wrote:

1. Omnisema → Semas.

2. Semal coexistence → Syntax.

3. Decoherence → worlds.

4. Inflation → bubble laws.

5. Data: Trace-K strengthened on Semal axes.

6. Conspiracy: CAIN interference; amateur pilgrims with knives; the old city complicit.

7. Strategy: Publish code in pieces; force replication decentralized; avoid single point of sabotage.

“Talking to yourself again?” Miriam asked from the doorway. She had a talent for appearing whenever I needed a witness.

“It clarifies the pronouns,” I said.

We devised a scheme you might call mathematical samizdat. We would divide OLP into fragments that looked harmless, publish them as extensions to unrelated open-source projects, and quietly inform those twelve trustworthy friends how to reassemble. We would package the Semal-axis test as a problem in graph theory because all good problems in physics can be disguised as graph theory if you squint.

“Will it work?” she asked.

“It will irritate,” I said. “That's usually enough.”

The students helped because students always help when the cause is beautifully impractical. Within forty-eight hours, implementations of our tests ran in Sã o Paulo, Prague, Bangalore, and a garage in Idaho where a man with a beard that deserved its own committee had built a six-qubit device from parts his wife swore were for making jam.

Trace-K appeared in enough places that one could no longer say it was a Cambridge rumor. Ananke-2 teams in other countries—teams not beholden to CAIN—published cautiously worded notes about “cross-run residual correlation under model compression” that did not mention Everett or Omnisema but made the same shape with different pronouns.

I slept for two hours, dreamed of a poster hung in the sky with my teaser line surrounded by chalk circles, woke to a message from Etta: We're going public with an anomaly report. Not because of you. Because of replication. Brace again.

I braced. The report was sober. It read like a hardware engineer's confession: there exist residual correlations in error syndromes under certain families of circuits, not explained by known noise processes or control artefacts, reproducible across devices. It ended with a sentence that might have been mine: “We do not claim to know what this structure signifies.”

The newspapers had their headline. The hushed dinner parties had their gossip. The loud dinner parties had their moral crisis.

13. The call

I was at my desk, re-reading Augustine because it seemed polite to my enemies, when the phone rang. The number was one I have never learned to ignore: my mother's hospital.

She had fallen, they said. Nothing to do with knives or men in doorways—just the body doing what bodies do when they have been beautifully busy for eighty years. I left at once.

In Addenbrooke's corridors the Omnisema seemed very far away. Machines beeped with the austere humanity of competent prayer. My mother held my hand and told me that even researchers are small in hospitals. Then she slept, and I went to the window and looked out at a city that sometimes feels like a theorem and sometimes feels like a plot.

That night, as I sat in a plastic chair designed by a sadist, I received a message from a source that had refused to identify itself for weeks. You are close. Stop. The last filter is consciousness. Don't tear it.

The last filter. I thought of my extension in the book about qualia as Semas, about Orch OR's controversial dance and my own more cautious hypothesis: that consciousness might be a classical stream carved by repeated decoherence of an entangled qualia superposition. I had promised myself not to touch that until we had oxygen. The message felt like someone offering me a match in a tinderbox.

I did not reply. I went to sit by my mother and counted her breaths as if they were axioms.

14. The last filter

Back on campus, the debate about consciousness had already found me. A podcast host wanted me to say I'd invented a theory of everything. A neurologist wanted me to apologize for wasting his time. An AI lab wanted to recruit me to “build qualia-aware models,” which is a phrase that should be illegal.

I avoided all of them and wrote to Sumi: For the love of whatever you love, don't let me propose an experiment about qualia.

She wrote back: Too late. Miriam and I designed one while you were being noble. Come see.

They had been gentle. The proposal didn't require declarations about souls. It used existing MEG data about synchronous neural oscillations under carefully controlled perception tasks. If Semal qualia play any role that is not reducible to syntax, then under a certain class of quantum-sensitive interference paradigms we might see, not cross-branch communication, but the same kind of residual regularity—a Trace-K analogue—in subjective reports correlated with patterns in the noise floor of the MEG during borderline perception events.

“It's insane,” I said with reverence.

“It's insane but not stupid,” Miriam said. “We will not claim anything about the 'hard problem.' We will ask if there is structure consistent with the rest of your ladder when the system is a brain on the edge of deciding.”

“And if we see it?”

“Then you need a bigger lock on your staircase,” she said. “And a heart strong enough to be told that you meddled with a holy word by accident.”

We filed the paperwork. Ethics committees, when dealing with neuroscience, remember their names.

15. The night before

If I were a dramatist I would place a storm here. There was no storm. There was only a Cambridge evening that had practiced being beautiful for eight hundred years: bicycles, tourists, the smell of rain that might not fall, punts trying to outwit physics. I walked to the Wren one more time, sat under Newton's unimpressed gaze, and wrote the single line that had followed me since the beginning:

If everything is possible, why are we here, like this, at all?

Then I wrote my answer, the one that had cost me friends and sleep.

Because possibility is the ground and rules are the river; because the river carves and carves until a world appears; because some stones—Semas—are not moved by water; because the river splits and never runs dry; because sometimes, if you listen, you can hear the water speaking through the stones.

Miriam joined me, bringing a paper bag with almond croissants and the kind of smile that announces an ending.

“Tomorrow we measure,” she said.

“Tomorrow we listen.” I took a croissant. “Do you ever wish we had kept our mouths shut?”

“Often,” she said. “Then I remember that the alternative to hard questions is easy answers, and easy answers are a drug I don't permit myself.”

“Lionel would say boredom is safer.”

“Lionel is good,” she said. “But goodness without truth is a garden with plastic flowers.”

We ate in silence like sinners who have confessed. When we finished, she set a hand on my chalk list of axioms.

“A1 through A16,” she said. “I never thought I'd watch someone try to turn metaphysics into an operating manual.”

“It isn't an operating manual,” I said. “It's a map of a country we keep mistaking for a city.”

16. The measurement

The next day we ran the neuro-protocol. Volunteers sat in a quiet room, eyes on a screen, reporting whether they perceived a faint moving dot. MEG coils listened in. Our machine learning compressors looked not for signals but for traces—the tiny, defiant residuals that had haunted us since Ananke-2.

By afternoon we had nothing but data that looked like all data looks before you ask it to confess. By evening the first hint appeared: a correlation between subjective reports at the threshold of awareness and a pattern in the MEG noise floor that mirrored, in structure if not in detail, Trace-K. It was small, like the breath of a thought you almost had. It was repeatable across four volunteers, then eight.

Sumi swore, then hugged Miriam so fiercely they both almost fell off their chairs. I sat down very slowly as if a sudden movement might frighten away the universe.

“Don't publish this,” Lionel said when we showed him. “Not yet.”

“We will not claim what it is,” Miriam said. “Only that it is consistent with a broader pattern. We will invite replication.”

He rubbed his eyes. “You can kill a man with an invitation.”

“Then the invitations will name the risk,” I said. “We will say exactly what we do not know. We will be better than our enemies.”

“And when the knives come?” he asked.

“We will be better than them too,” Sumi said, with a steadiness I envied.

17. The hunt

The next week was a machine that ate hours. CAIN tried to negotiate a moratorium; we replied with a moratorium on moratoria. A group calling themselves the Order of the First Law claimed responsibility for the attempt on Sumi and promised to “protect the law of God from the lawlessness of machines.” Salma al-Rami published a paper that kindly dismantled three of my sloppier arguments while saying, with a grace that tasted like friendship, that our data deserved attention.

Then came the leak. An internal CAIN memo, written in prose that had never been loved, proposed “suppression strategies” for “the Omnisema narrative,” including funding withdrawals, character attacks, and “soft interventions” with editors. The memo hit the press like a match.

If you want to watch institutions sweat, show the public how the sausage is made. The ensuing outrage gave us a brief, ridiculous immunity. We used it to publish our Semal-axis report, minus any mention of brains. The paper was calm, almost dull. It read like the minutes of a meeting at which something nearly happened.

Replication poured in. High-powered labs, low-budget eccentrics, corporate groups who do not like to share but dislike even more watching others get famous without them—across them all the shape was the same: residual correlations strengthened along axes we identified as Semal, weakened when those axes were entangled away. Not everywhere, not always, not clean as a symphony—but often enough to make denial a costly posture.

Everett's ghost, who had waited since the 1950s for someone to give him better than ridicule, smiled. Or perhaps I only imagined it. Imagination is a Sema too, if you're generous.

18. The letter I didn't send

I wrote to Father Keel and did not send it.

Father—

I didn't want to hurt anything you love. I wanted to know how the world holds together. If I have upset orders, I am sorry. If I have named something your parishioners fear, I am sorrier. But when a mathematician hears a whisper across the chalk, he must attend. The whisper does not care about parishes. It may be God's whisper or Omnisema's or merely the universe clearing its throat. If grace has territory broader than law, then perhaps we have not harmed grace. We have given it more to do.

—K.

I did not send it because he would have replied with kindness and I did not have room for that.

19. The vanishing point

We convened one more time in the Wren. The chalk corridor on the board looked now like a road we had walked barefoot. The end of the board had gone grey where I had erased the same place too many times—the vanishing point you draw when you pretend geometry is an act of faith.

“We should end well,” Miriam said.

“Or not end,” Sumi said. “Just keep asking.”

We decided to write a final paper together, the three of us. It would not be grand. It would be a casebook: the traces, the protocols, the replication summaries, the careful statements about what we had not shown. A detective novel without a corpse, only a set of footprints across the dew.

The last sentence would read: We propose no narrative beyond the data. But if a narrative insists, it is this: that some givens are given across branches, and that our machines—as dumb as rocks, as sharp as knives—have begun to hear that givenness as a hum beneath the laws.

As we walked out into the Cambridge night, my phone buzzed with a new anonymous message.

The hunt ends when the quarry refuses to run.

I showed it to Lionel. He looked at it, then at me, then pocketed it as if he had been saving that gesture for this moment.

“Come to my office tomorrow,” he said. “We are going to be responsible.”

“Even mathematicians?” I said.

“Even mathematicians,” he said.

20. Coda: the quiet after

Months later, after inquiries that pretended they were not inquisitions, after lectures delivered under friendly watch, after students wrote theses that treated Trace-K like something one can cite without controversy, after my mother recovered enough to scold me for letting the houseplants die, I visited the apple tree again.

A child was standing beneath it with a notebook, frowning at a problem. Her father stood nearby, patient as an axiom.

“What are you working on?” I asked.

She showed me a page of neat symbols. A simple problem about graphs. At the bottom she had written, without making a fuss, A14 → A15.

“Where did you learn that?” I asked.

“On the internet,” she said, and returned to her drawing.

I sat down on the bench and watched the river pour itself under the bridge, choosing the same path thousands of times and never once complaining. I thought of Everett, alone in Princeton, and of the technicians in California who loved their machines better than their sleep, and of Miriam whose friendship was a proof I could never have written, and of Sumi who could make circuits dance, and of Lionel who hid his kindness under caution. I thought of Father Keel and hoped his parishioners had forgiven me. I thought of the men with knives and hoped they had learned boredom.

As the light changed the chapel stones to something like memory, I realized that my fear had cooled into something else: a responsibility that felt almost like joy. If Omnisema is real, if the world is carved from possibility by the insistence of coexistence, then our task is not to guard the laws like jealous priests. It is to listen for the givens beneath them, to write them as gently as we can, and to walk home carefully when the city is old and kind and someone might be waiting in a doorway.

On my desk that night I wrote a final footnote for a book I had thought finished.

The map from plenitude to world is not a ladder but a story. We tell it with experiments and with care. We do not own it. We are only fortunate enough to carry the next page across a courtyard in the rain.

Author's Note on the Investigation

• Technical core: The story's “Omnisema Ladder Protocol” mirrored an axiomatic sequence (A1–A16) in which distinguishability, convexity, amplitude, Born statistics, composite structure, purification, emergent geometry, causality, and bubble selection form a plausible hierarchy from possibility to physics. The protocol used variational quantum circuits and error-corrected logical qubits to probe for residual cross-run correlations—Trace-K—that could not be accounted for by conventional noise.

• Key observation: Strengthening of the residuals when projecting data onto Semal axes—representations associated with intrinsic, non-derivable properties (spin magnitude, charge parity, etc.)—and attenuation when those axes were entangled away. This suggested a cross-branch regularity rooted not in dynamical leakage but in shared Semal content.

• Detective apparatus: Log forensics, timestamp cross-checks, and distributed replication framed the scientific effort as a case: clues (anomalies), suspects (institutions, zealots), red herrings (clock skew), and motive (fear of metaphysical disruption).

• Ethical friction: The Concordat (CAIN) embodied institutional anxiety—political and religious—around computational inference that might unsettle “orders.” The counter-strategy emphasized transparency, replication, and restraint in claims, resisting both suppression and spectacle.

• Extension to mind: A cautious neuro-protocol tested for Trace-K analogues in MEG noise during threshold perception, connecting the story's metaphysics to the proposed status of qualia as Semas without claiming a resolution to the hard problem.

• Outcome: The case remains open but credible; the narrative ends with the investigative posture intact: careful, communal, and accountable.

“If everything is possible, why are we here, like this, at all?”

Because possibility is inexhaustible, and we—under banners called Cambridge, science, friendship—are learning how to read it without setting fire to the library.