Common introduction to all the records of this series. The content of this record follows below. Mathematical Materiality (MM) in brief. Why are the laws of physics the same everywhere and at every instant, even though nothing forces matter to obey them? MM proposes an answer: the laws are not rules imposed on matter from the outside; rather, matter itself is made of mathematical relations. And mathematics cannot change: a relation binds two distinct terms everywhere and always. In logic, nothing exists on its own: to exist means to be in relation to another logical entity, and outside this web of relations nothing can exist, not even other universes. This reading already meets experimental measurements at two points. First, the ratio of dark to ordinary matter is read as 3√3 = 5.196; when left free in the fits, Planck and DESI DR2 data give 5.21–5.22 (as registered in record 2.44, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23329080). Second, the acceleration scale of galaxies is read as a₀ = cH₀/6, the same scale that appears in Verlinde's emergent gravity: the computed value is 1.09–1.18 × 10⁻¹⁰ m/s² against the measured value of 1.20 (record 2.46.1, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23506655). Both readings were formulated with the measurements already known; the tests to check them against future data are registered in the same records. In the first logical nexus between space and time — which became homogeneous with Einstein — there is a non-local phase, made only of a pure logical distinction: space is not time. Between the two there is no relation of quantitative calculation, only the logical entity they have in common, which is needed to make them exist with respect to each other. This level is not distant: it is present in every phase of reality, in every place and at every instant. It shows in entanglement, where two distant systems remain correlated more strongly than any explanation based on separate properties and free of faster-than-light influences allows, without anything physically travelling between them. In this non-local phase the two distinct terms, space and time, share only one logical element, which we shall call their greatest common divisor (GCD), just as the numbers 3 and 5 have only 1 in common. The local world arises when a relation is counted through this GCD: its multiples and its fractions form a matrix. Seen by an observer inside the system like us, the multiples appear as time and the fractions as space. When that same multiple is directly contained in the matrix of the point of observation, it turns into mass — that is, into concrete matter as we usually understand it. There is therefore a close link between time and mass, in full agreement with Einstein's relativity, which ties mass to spacetime. The observed objects, while being logically autonomous entities in their local relations, enter into relation with the observer through a logical diffraction — that is, a decomposition into fractions — of the observer's matrix. This reading also gives a reason for the limit of the speed of light, which in Einstein's relativity is instead taken as a starting principle. The speed of light is the fixed exchange rate between the multiples and the fractions of the same GCD, meaning how much space a single step of time is worth: exceeding it would mean, for some observer, covering space without counting time, and thus leaving the local world. Logic always starts from a logical relative, and this exchange rate has nothing absolute in itself either: it is a necessary relative which, inside the system, becomes an absolute hypothesis, the same for everyone and impossible to exceed. Outside the system, by contrast, it has no justification at all, because outside there is only non-existence: justifying something requires another term to relate it to, and out there there is none. Asking for a reason from outside is like asking what lies north of the North Pole. The same theoretical framework that reads space, time, mass and the observed objects also admits quantum mechanics. The non-local phase and the mirror-like logical reciprocity between the two ends of the nexus give a reason for the probabilistic behaviour of matter. When the observed object is large enough, its mass fixes it in the matrix of the point of observation: for this reason we see it in one precise place and at one precise instant. When instead the object falls below a certain mass threshold, the principal GCD (that of the point of observation) and the GCD of the diffraction that generates the object are forced to become equal, reflecting each other as in a mirror. At that point the object no longer occupies a single point of the spacetime generated by the observer, but spreads over several possible positions, and we observe it as probability. It is like having to describe the number 10 using only the number 1: the only way is to distribute the 1 over ten positions, one for each unit of the 10. Today we know that even objects made of thousands of atoms behave in this way, and no experiment has yet found the boundary. The idea that the passage from quantum to classical behaviour depends on mass is close to that of Penrose and Diósi; in MM the threshold is the point where the two GCDs, the principal one and that of the local diffraction, become equal. For all these reasons the universe behaves like a simulation without really being one. It follows exact rules, made of counts, everywhere and at every instant, but no machine runs them and no programmer wrote them: a structure of mathematical relations does not need to be computed in order to exist. Tegmark (2008) had already noted that such a simulation need not be run, while Vazza (2025) estimated that running it physically on a machine would require resources that the very laws of the universe do not allow. This record develops one aspect of the theoretical framework. The work is shared openly so that it can be judged by as many readers as possible: anyone who knows someone interested can pass on this single link, valid for the whole framework (with an overview in English and Italian): https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23535916. The entry page, with the complete list of all records, is https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22667516. To cite the framework: Lanciano, U. (2026). The number 1 in front of the mirror: Mathematical Materiality from the nexus to the cosmos. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23535916. The records have been deposited since 5 August 2026, each with its own date, and are released under CC BY 4.0: anyone may use them by citing the source. Objections and errors found are welcome at riverantares@gmail.com, since Zenodo has no space for comments. Bell experiments without loopholes give CHSH values above the local bound 2, and high-precision measurements are compatible with Tsirelson's quantum bound 2√2 (Poh et al. 2015: 2.82759 ± 0.00051). This record asks what the author's framework, Mathematical Materiality (MM), must contain to respect both facts, and where it then stands among interpretations of quantum mechanics. No mathematical priority is claimed: the theorems used are published (Tsirelson; Barnum et al. 2010; Sorkin's quantum measures; Craig, Dowker et al. 2007; Aharonov's two-time formalism; Cramer; Argaman 2010; Wharton and Argaman 2020), and the record separates published results, derivations in the working notes and numerical conjectures. Predictions were registered with SHA-256 fingerprints before each test; failed predictions are reported. (1) Local readings and the Tsirelson bound. If each wing is read with the Born geometry (Euclidean state space with all its effects), no no-signalling joint event exceeds 2√2. Replacing the Euclidean ball with ℓ^p balls raises the maximum: 2^(2−1/p) for p ≥ 2 (the value of Ver Steeg and Wehner 2009), above 2√2 also for 1 < p < 2 (exact value conjectural). With marginals of length m the maximum is the quantum 2√(2 − m²). Two registered predictions failed: a hand formula, wrong for p < 2, and a three-dimensional search that stayed below the value already reached by the two-dimensional construction. (2) Two slits on the Feynman checkerboard (MM 2.40). In the 2.40 representation the imaginary turn weight −i sin θ produces destructive interference (dark fringes); with positive weights the two-slit pattern never falls below the sum of the single slits. The fringes fall at −143.2 and +140.4 lattice sites against ±142.1 predicted from the lattice dispersion. For the preparations tested, a real coin gives the same probabilities. A first registered run failed because its "central region" was badly defined; the second run was registered after seeing the first. (3) Can a future boundary give Born frequencies? In a minimal model, a future that selects the outcome reproduces Born frequencies only with some rules (weighting each future by the closure of its loop, or an exponential race), not with others. The measure over futures remains a postulate. (4) A locally mediated retrocausal singlet model. The future reading of one wing fixes a parameter carried back to the source and forward to the other wing, which reads it with the local Born rule. Singlet correlations are reproduced with every link along paths inside light cones. Within this family, no observable signalling holds only for the balanced (Born) weight, as already discussed by Argaman (2010); the angular law is assumed. (5) Self-consistency and the balanced weight. In the pair model the Born weight is put in by hand. With any other weight a bit could be signalled through the loop and, composed with a second link (Tolman's antitelephone, assumed), into the sender's past; a paradox protocol then makes consistent histories as improbable as one likes (0.02 with p = 0.51 and 10 001 pairs), while with the Born weight the channel carries nothing. This does not make non-Born weights impossible: the step from "arbitrarily improbable" to "cannot exist" is stated as the author's postulate. (
Common introduction to all the records of this series. The content of this record follows below. Mathematical Materiality (MM) in brief. Why are the laws of physics the same everywhere and at every instant, even though nothing forces matter to obey them? MM proposes an answer: the laws are not rules imposed on matter from the outside; rather, matter itself is made of mathematical relations. And mathematics cannot change: a relation binds two distinct terms everywhere and always. In logic, nothing exists on its own: to exist means to be in relation to another logical entity, and outside this web of relations nothing can exist, not even other universes. This reading already meets experimental measurements at two points. First, the ratio of dark to ordinary matter is read as 3√3 = 5.196; when left free in the fits, Planck and DESI DR2 data give 5.21–5.22 (as registered in record 2.44, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23329080). Second, the acceleration scale of galaxies is read as a₀ = cH₀/6, the same scale that appears in Verlinde's emergent gravity: the computed value is 1.09–1.18 × 10⁻¹⁰ m/s² against the measured value of 1.20 (record 2.46.1, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23506655). Both readings were formulated with the measurements already known; the tests to check them against future data are registered in the same records. In the first logical nexus between space and time — which became homogeneous with Einstein — there is a non-local phase, made only of a pure logical distinction: space is not time. Between the two there is no relation of quantitative calculation, only the logical entity they have in common, which is needed to make them exist with respect to each other. This level is not distant: it is present in every phase of reality, in every place and at every instant. It shows in entanglement, where two distant systems remain correlated more strongly than any explanation based on separate properties and free of faster-than-light influences allows, without anything physically travelling between them. In this non-local phase the two distinct terms, space and time, share only one logical element, which we shall call their greatest common divisor (GCD), just as the numbers 3 and 5 have only 1 in common. The local world arises when a relation is counted through this GCD: its multiples and its fractions form a matrix. Seen by an observer inside the system like us, the multiples appear as time and the fractions as space. When that same multiple is directly contained in the matrix of the point of observation, it turns into mass — that is, into concrete matter as we usually understand it. There is therefore a close link between time and mass, in full agreement with Einstein's relativity, which ties mass to spacetime. The observed objects, while being logically autonomous entities in their local relations, enter into relation with the observer through a logical diffraction — that is, a decomposition into fractions — of the observer's matrix. This reading also gives a reason for the limit of the speed of light, which in Einstein's relativity is instead taken as a starting principle. The speed of light is the fixed exchange rate between the multiples and the fractions of the same GCD, meaning how much space a single step of time is worth: exceeding it would mean, for some observer, covering space without counting time, and thus leaving the local world. Logic always starts from a logical relative, and this exchange rate has nothing absolute in itself either: it is a necessary relative which, inside the system, becomes an absolute hypothesis, the same for everyone and impossible to exceed. Outside the system, by contrast, it has no justification at all, because outside there is only non-existence: justifying something requires another term to relate it to, and out there there is none. Asking for a reason from outside is like asking what lies north of the North Pole. The same theoretical framework that reads space, time, mass and the observed objects also admits quantum mechanics. The non-local phase and the mirror-like logical reciprocity between the two ends of the nexus give a reason for the probabilistic behaviour of matter. When the observed object is large enough, its mass fixes it in the matrix of the point of observation: for this reason we see it in one precise place and at one precise instant. When instead the object falls below a certain mass threshold, the principal GCD (that of the point of observation) and the GCD of the diffraction that generates the object are forced to become equal, reflecting each other as in a mirror. At that point the object no longer occupies a single point of the spacetime generated by the observer, but spreads over several possible positions, and we observe it as probability. It is like having to describe the number 10 using only the number 1: the only way is to distribute the 1 over ten positions, one for each unit of the 10. Today we know that even objects made of thousands of atoms behave in this way, and no experiment has yet found the boundary. The idea that the passage from quantum to classical behaviour depends on mass is close to that of Penrose and Diósi; in MM the threshold is the point where the two GCDs, the principal one and that of the local diffraction, become equal. For all these reasons the universe behaves like a simulation without really being one. It follows exact rules, made of counts, everywhere and at every instant, but no machine runs them and no programmer wrote them: a structure of mathematical relations does not need to be computed in order to exist. Tegmark (2008) had already noted that such a simulation need not be run, while Vazza (2025) estimated that running it physically on a machine would require resources that the very laws of the universe do not allow. This record develops one aspect of the theoretical framework. The work is shared openly so that it can be judged by as many readers as possible: anyone who knows someone interested can pass on this single link, valid for the whole framework (with an overview in English and Italian): https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23535916. The entry page, with the complete list of all records, is https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22667516. To cite the framework: Lanciano, U. (2026). The number 1 in front of the mirror: Mathematical Materiality from the nexus to the cosmos. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23535916. The records have been deposited since 5 August 2026, each with its own date, and are released under CC BY 4.0: anyone may use them by citing the source. Objections and errors found are welcome at riverantares@gmail.com, since Zenodo has no space for comments. Bell experiments without loopholes give CHSH values above the local bound 2, and high-precision measurements are compatible with Tsirelson's quantum bound 2√2 (Poh et al. 2015: 2.82759 ± 0.00051). This record asks what the author's framework, Mathematical Materiality (MM), must contain to respect both facts, and where it then stands among interpretations of quantum mechanics. No mathematical priority is claimed: the theorems used are published (Tsirelson; Barnum et al. 2010; Sorkin's quantum measures; Craig, Dowker et al. 2007; Aharonov's two-time formalism; Cramer; Argaman 2010; Wharton and Argaman 2020), and the record separates published results, derivations in the working notes and numerical conjectures. Predictions were registered with SHA-256 fingerprints before each test; failed predictions are reported. (1) Local readings and the Tsirelson bound. If each wing is read with the Born geometry (Euclidean state space with all its effects), no no-signalling joint event exceeds 2√2. Replacing the Euclidean ball with ℓ^p balls raises the maximum: 2^(2−1/p) for p ≥ 2 (the value of Ver Steeg and Wehner 2009), above 2√2 also for 1 < p < 2 (exact value conjectural). With marginals of length m the maximum is the quantum 2√(2 − m²). Two registered predictions failed: a hand formula, wrong for p < 2, and a three-dimensional search that stayed below the value already reached by the two-dimensional construction. (2) Two slits on the Feynman checkerboard (MM 2.40). In the 2.40 representation the imaginary turn weight −i sin θ produces destructive interference (dark fringes); with positive weights the two-slit pattern never falls below the sum of the single slits. The fringes fall at −143.2 and +140.4 lattice sites against ±142.1 predicted from the lattice dispersion. For the preparations tested, a real coin gives the same probabilities. A first registered run failed because its "central region" was badly defined; the second run was registered after seeing the first. (3) Can a future boundary give Born frequencies? In a minimal model, a future that selects the outcome reproduces Born frequencies only with some rules (weighting each future by the closure of its loop, or an exponential race), not with others. The measure over futures remains a postulate. (4) A locally mediated retrocausal singlet model. The future reading of one wing fixes a parameter carried back to the source and forward to the other wing, which reads it with the local Born rule. Singlet correlations are reproduced with every link along paths inside light cones. Within this family, no observable signalling holds only for the balanced (Born) weight, as already discussed by Argaman (2010); the angular law is assumed. (5) Self-consistency and the balanced weight. In the pair model the Born weight is put in by hand. With any other weight a bit could be signalled through the loop and, composed with a second link (Tolman's antitelephone, assumed), into the sender's past; a paradox protocol then makes consistent histories as improbable as one likes (0.02 with p = 0.51 and 10 001 pairs), while with the Born weight the channel carries nothing. This does not make non-Born weights impossible: the step from "arbitrarily improbable" to "cannot exist" is stated as the author's postulate. (
Common introduction to all the records of this series. The content of this record follows below. Mathematical Materiality (MM) in brief. Why are the laws of physics the same everywhere and at every instant, even though nothing forces matter to obey them? MM proposes an answer: the laws are not rules imposed on matter from the outside; rather, matter itself is made of mathematical relations. And mathematics cannot change: a relation binds two distinct terms everywhere and always. In logic, nothing exists on its own: to exist means to be in relation to another logical entity, and outside this web of relations nothing can exist, not even other universes. This reading already meets experimental measurements at two points. First, the ratio of dark to ordinary matter is read as 3√3 = 5.196; when left free in the fits, Planck and DESI DR2 data give 5.21–5.22 (as registered in record 2.44, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23329080). Second, the acceleration scale of galaxies is read as a₀ = cH₀/6, the same scale that appears in Verlinde's emergent gravity: the computed value is 1.09–1.18 × 10⁻¹⁰ m/s² against the measured value of 1.20 (record 2.46.1, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23506655). Both readings were formulated with the measurements already known; the tests to check them against future data are registered in the same records. In the first logical nexus between space and time — which became homogeneous with Einstein — there is a non-local phase, made only of a pure logical distinction: space is not time. Between the two there is no relation of quantitative calculation, only the logical entity they have in common, which is needed to make them exist with respect to each other. This level is not distant: it is present in every phase of reality, in every place and at every instant. It shows in entanglement, where two distant systems remain correlated more strongly than any explanation based on separate properties and free of faster-than-light influences allows, without anything physically travelling between them. In this non-local phase the two distinct terms, space and time, share only one logical element, which we shall call their greatest common divisor (GCD), just as the numbers 3 and 5 have only 1 in common. The local world arises when a relation is counted through this GCD: its multiples and its fractions form a matrix. Seen by an observer inside the system like us, the multiples appear as time and the fractions as space. When that same multiple is directly contained in the matrix of the point of observation, it turns into mass — that is, into concrete matter as we usually understand it. There is therefore a close link between time and mass, in full agreement with Einstein's relativity, which ties mass to spacetime. The observed objects, while being logically autonomous entities in their local relations, enter into relation with the observer through a logical diffraction — that is, a decomposition into fractions — of the observer's matrix. This reading also gives a reason for the limit of the speed of light, which in Einstein's relativity is instead taken as a starting principle. The speed of light is the fixed exchange rate between the multiples and the fractions of the same GCD, meaning how much space a single step of time is worth: exceeding it would mean, for some observer, covering space without counting time, and thus leaving the local world. Logic always starts from a logical relative, and this exchange rate has nothing absolute in itself either: it is a necessary relative which, inside the system, becomes an absolute hypothesis, the same for everyone and impossible to exceed. Outside the system, by contrast, it has no justification at all, because outside there is only non-existence: justifying something requires another term to relate it to, and out there there is none. Asking for a reason from outside is like asking what lies north of the North Pole. The same theoretical framework that reads space, time, mass and the observed objects also admits quantum mechanics. The non-local phase and the mirror-like logical reciprocity between the two ends of the nexus give a reason for the probabilistic behaviour of matter. When the observed object is large enough, its mass fixes it in the matrix of the point of observation: for this reason we see it in one precise place and at one precise instant. When instead the object falls below a certain mass threshold, the principal GCD (that of the point of observation) and the GCD of the diffraction that generates the object are forced to become equal, reflecting each other as in a mirror. At that point the object no longer occupies a single point of the spacetime generated by the observer, but spreads over several possible positions, and we observe it as probability. It is like having to describe the number 10 using only the number 1: the only way is to distribute the 1 over ten positions, one for each unit of the 10. Today we know that even objects made of thousands of atoms behave in this way, and no experiment has yet found the boundary. The idea that the passage from quantum to classical behaviour depends on mass is close to that of Penrose and Diósi; in MM the threshold is the point where the two GCDs, the principal one and that of the local diffraction, become equal. For all these reasons the universe behaves like a simulation without really being one. It follows exact rules, made of counts, everywhere and at every instant, but no machine runs them and no programmer wrote them: a structure of mathematical relations does not need to be computed in order to exist. Tegmark (2008) had already noted that such a simulation need not be run, while Vazza (2025) estimated that running it physically on a machine would require resources that the very laws of the universe do not allow. The work is shared openly so that it can be judged by as many readers as possible: anyone who knows someone interested can pass on this single link, valid for the whole framework (with an overview in English and Italian): https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23535916. The entry page, with the complete list of all records, is https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22667516. To cite the framework: Lanciano, U. (2026). The number 1 in front of the mirror: Mathematical Materiality from the nexus to the cosmos. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23535916. The records have been deposited since 5 August 2026, each with its own date, and are released under CC BY 4.0: anyone may use them by citing the source. Objections and errors found are welcome at riverantares@gmail.com, since Zenodo has no space for comments. This record contains the four-page summary of the framework, in English and in Italian: the question of why physical laws hold everywhere with nothing to enforce them; the Great Reversal; the non-local phase and its empirical trace in Bell-type experiments; the five postulates with the example of 3 and 5; the matrix; the equals sign as a mirror; a clock made of 3 and 5, whose two means give Einstein's slowing of moving clocks (a known identity: Bondi 1964; Knuth and Bahreyni 2014); and the comparison with two measured numbers. The full overview, with the list of all records, is at DOI 10.5281/zenodo.22667516. The author is not a professional physicist; the framework and its premises are the author's own. The texts were written with the help of AI assistants. There has been no review by human referees.
This record. Twelve phenomena, entanglement among them, read through the same non-local phase: «non-local» as not located in space and time, not as action at a distance. Reading path: Foundations: why the laws hold, 5 of 5 · before: Is mass a contained rhythm? · all themes. Common introduction to all the records of this series. The content of this record follows below. Mathematical Materiality (MM) in brief. Why are the laws of physics the same everywhere and at every instant, even though nothing forces matter to obey them? MM proposes an answer: the laws are not rules imposed on matter from the outside; rather, matter itself is made of mathematical relations. And mathematics cannot change: a relation binds two distinct terms everywhere and always. In logic, nothing exists on its own: to exist means to be in relation to another logical entity, and outside this web of relations nothing can exist, not even other universes. This reading already meets experimental measurements at two points. First, the ratio of dark to ordinary matter is read as 3√3 = 5.196; when left free in the fits, Planck and DESI DR2 data give 5.21–5.22 (as registered in record 2.44, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23329080). Second, the acceleration scale of galaxies is read as a₀ = cH₀/6, the same scale that appears in Verlinde's emergent gravity: the computed value is 1.09–1.18 × 10⁻¹⁰ m/s² against the measured value of 1.20 (record 2.46.1, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23506655). Both readings were formulated with the measurements already known; the tests to check them against future data are registered in the same records. In the first logical nexus between space and time — which became homogeneous with Einstein — there is a non-local phase, made only of a pure logical distinction: space is not time. Between the two there is no relation of quantitative calculation, only the logical entity they have in common, which is needed to make them exist with respect to each other. This level is not distant: it is present in every phase of reality, in every place and at every instant. It shows in entanglement, where two distant systems remain correlated more strongly than any explanation based on separate properties and free of faster-than-light influences allows, without anything physically travelling between them. In this non-local phase the two distinct terms, space and time, share only one logical element, which we shall call their greatest common divisor (GCD), just as the numbers 3 and 5 have only 1 in common. The local world arises when a relation is counted through this GCD: its multiples and its fractions form a matrix. Seen by an observer inside the system like us, the multiples appear as time and the fractions as space. When that same multiple is directly contained in the matrix of the point of observation, it turns into mass — that is, into concrete matter as we usually understand it. There is therefore a close link between time and mass, in full agreement with Einstein's relativity, which ties mass to spacetime. The observed objects, while being logically autonomous entities in their local relations, enter into relation with the observer through a logical diffraction — that is, a decomposition into fractions — of the observer's matrix. This reading also gives a reason for the limit of the speed of light, which in Einstein's relativity is instead taken as a starting principle. The speed of light is the fixed exchange rate between the multiples and the fractions of the same GCD, meaning how much space a single step of time is worth: exceeding it would mean, for some observer, covering space without counting time, and thus leaving the local world. Logic always starts from a logical relative, and this exchange rate has nothing absolute in itself either: it is a necessary relative which, inside the system, becomes an absolute hypothesis, the same for everyone and impossible to exceed. Outside the system, by contrast, it has no justification at all, because outside there is only non-existence: justifying something requires another term to relate it to, and out there there is none. Asking for a reason from outside is like asking what lies north of the North Pole. The same theoretical framework that reads space, time, mass and the observed objects also admits quantum mechanics. The non-local phase and the mirror-like logical reciprocity between the two ends of the nexus give a reason for the probabilistic behaviour of matter. When the observed object is large enough, its mass fixes it in the matrix of the point of observation: for this reason we see it in one precise place and at one precise instant. When instead the object falls below a certain mass threshold, the principal GCD (that of the point of observation) and the GCD of the diffraction that generates the object are forced to become equal, reflecting each other as in a mirror. At that point the object no longer occupies a single point of the spacetime generated by the observer, but spreads over several possible positions, and we observe it as probability. It is like having to describe the number 10 using only the number 1: the only way is to distribute the 1 over ten positions, one for each unit of the 10. Today we know that even objects made of thousands of atoms behave in this way, and no experiment has yet found the boundary. The idea that the passage from quantum to classical behaviour depends on mass is close to that of Penrose and Diósi; in MM the threshold is the point where the two GCDs, the principal one and that of the local diffraction, become equal. For all these reasons the universe behaves like a simulation without really being one. It follows exact rules, made of counts, everywhere and at every instant, but no machine runs them and no programmer wrote them: a structure of mathematical relations does not need to be computed in order to exist. Tegmark (2008) had already noted that such a simulation need not be run, while Vazza (2025) estimated that running it physically on a machine would require resources that the very laws of the universe do not allow. This record develops one aspect of the theoretical framework. The work is shared openly so that it can be judged by as many readers as possible: anyone who knows someone interested can pass on this single link, valid for the whole framework (with an overview in English and Italian): https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23535916. The entry page, with the complete list of all records, is https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22667516. To cite the framework: Lanciano, U. (2026). The number 1 in front of the mirror: Mathematical Materiality from the nexus to the cosmos. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23535916. The records have been deposited since 5 August 2026, each with its own date, and are released under CC BY 4.0: anyone may use them by citing the source. Objections and errors found are welcome at riverantares@gmail.com, since Zenodo has no space for comments. This record. In physics «non-locality» mostly names one fact: the correlations of entanglement. In Mathematical Materiality (MM) it is the foundation: a non-local phase, not located in space and time and present everywhere, of which the local world is the count made from a point. Here «non-local» means not located in space and time; it does not mean action at a distance. This record collects, from MM's published records and the author's premises, twelve phenomena in which MM's reading uses the same non-local phase as the reason, and shows that entanglement is the case in which it rests most directly on a measured datum, not the only one. There are no new calculations: the result is the unity of the reading. The twelve phenomena: the correlations of entanglement beyond Bell's limit, and their Tsirelson ceiling, set by the local reading (MM 2.48, 2.48.1); the same laws everywhere and always, as copies of the same nexus (MM 2.68); identical particles, as the same unit counted twice (a proposal of the AI); the objects two observers see alike, as two counts of one non-local relation (MM 2.62.1); the boundary of the local as a number of copies, not a distance (August status report, reread); probability and the Born rule (MM 2.48.1); the mass below which an object stops being at one point (MM 2.66); the present, and the loop in which the future chooses what is written (MM 2.48, 2.68.1); space and time themselves: a clock counting events without pre-assigned places runs at Einstein's proper time (MM 2.40.2); the limit of light, the same for everyone; dark matter as the ordinary matter of a second mirror, with no reciprocal non-local link to us (MM 2.44); the boundary within which a gravitating system reads only its own field, set by the Galaxy (MM 2.70). How each is set out. For every phenomenon: what is observed, with sources; how known physics reads it; what the non-local phase does; where the link comes from (already written in a deposit, a premise of the author, or a proposal of the AI); what rests on calculations already deposited; what remains open. In ten phenomena the link is already in the deposits or in the author's premises; in one it comes partly from the AI, and in one from the AI alone. Three ways organise them: copies without distance, existence through a link, and a reading that is always local and partial. What is not claimed. The non-local phase transmits no signals and no influences outside light cones. Today it has no distinct experimental signature: where MM gives numbers, they coincide with known physics (the Tsirelson bound, decoherence, wave optics) or come from readings with declared choices. The record also lists the other senses in which «non-local» appears in MM's records, so that they are not confused with this one. Where the reading is tested. Gaia DR4 in December 2026 (rules registered in MM 2.70) and the mass threshold, with a prediction dated 31 December 2035 (MM 2.66); five open questions from MM 2.68. Contents: REA
Common introduction to all the records of this series. The content of this record follows below. Mathematical Materiality (MM) in brief. Why are the laws of physics the same everywhere and at every instant, even though nothing forces matter to obey them? MM proposes an answer: the laws are not rules imposed on matter from the outside; rather, matter itself is made of mathematical relations. And mathematics cannot change: a relation binds two distinct terms everywhere and always. In logic, nothing exists on its own: to exist means to be in relation to another logical entity, and outside this web of relations nothing can exist, not even other universes. This reading already meets experimental measurements at two points. First, the ratio of dark to ordinary matter is read as 3√3 = 5.196; when left free in the fits, Planck and DESI DR2 data give 5.21–5.22 (as registered in record 2.44, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23329080). Second, the acceleration scale of galaxies is read as a₀ = cH₀/6, the same scale that appears in Verlinde's emergent gravity: the computed value is 1.09–1.18 × 10⁻¹⁰ m/s² against the measured value of 1.20 (record 2.46.1, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23506655). Both readings were formulated with the measurements already known; the tests to check them against future data are registered in the same records. In the first logical nexus between space and time — which became homogeneous with Einstein — there is a non-local phase, made only of a pure logical distinction: space is not time. Between the two there is no relation of quantitative calculation, only the logical entity they have in common, which is needed to make them exist with respect to each other. This level is not distant: it is present in every phase of reality, in every place and at every instant. It shows in entanglement, where two distant systems remain correlated more strongly than any explanation based on separate properties and free of faster-than-light influences allows, without anything physically travelling between them. In this non-local phase the two distinct terms, space and time, share only one logical element, which we shall call their greatest common divisor (GCD), just as the numbers 3 and 5 have only 1 in common. The local world arises when a relation is counted through this GCD: its multiples and its fractions form a matrix. Seen by an observer inside the system like us, the multiples appear as time and the fractions as space. When that same multiple is directly contained in the matrix of the point of observation, it turns into mass — that is, into concrete matter as we usually understand it. There is therefore a close link between time and mass, in full agreement with Einstein's relativity, which ties mass to spacetime. The observed objects, while being logically autonomous entities in their local relations, enter into relation with the observer through a logical diffraction — that is, a decomposition into fractions — of the observer's matrix. This reading also gives a reason for the limit of the speed of light, which in Einstein's relativity is instead taken as a starting principle. The speed of light is the fixed exchange rate between the multiples and the fractions of the same GCD, meaning how much space a single step of time is worth: exceeding it would mean, for some observer, covering space without counting time, and thus leaving the local world. Logic always starts from a logical relative, and this exchange rate has nothing absolute in itself either: it is a necessary relative which, inside the system, becomes an absolute hypothesis, the same for everyone and impossible to exceed. Outside the system, by contrast, it has no justification at all, because outside there is only non-existence: justifying something requires another term to relate it to, and out there there is none. Asking for a reason from outside is like asking what lies north of the North Pole. The same theoretical framework that reads space, time, mass and the observed objects also admits quantum mechanics. The non-local phase and the mirror-like logical reciprocity between the two ends of the nexus give a reason for the probabilistic behaviour of matter. When the observed object is large enough, its mass fixes it in the matrix of the point of observation: for this reason we see it in one precise place and at one precise instant. When instead the object falls below a certain mass threshold, the principal GCD (that of the point of observation) and the GCD of the diffraction that generates the object are forced to become equal, reflecting each other as in a mirror. At that point the object no longer occupies a single point of the spacetime generated by the observer, but spreads over several possible positions, and we observe it as probability. It is like having to describe the number 10 using only the number 1: the only way is to distribute the 1 over ten positions, one for each unit of the 10. Today we know that even objects made of thousands of atoms behave in this way, and no experiment has yet found the boundary. The idea that the passage from quantum to classical behaviour depends on mass is close to that of Penrose and Diósi; in MM the threshold is the point where the two GCDs, the principal one and that of the local diffraction, become equal. For all these reasons the universe behaves like a simulation without really being one. It follows exact rules, made of counts, everywhere and at every instant, but no machine runs them and no programmer wrote them: a structure of mathematical relations does not need to be computed in order to exist. Tegmark (2008) had already noted that such a simulation need not be run, while Vazza (2025) estimated that running it physically on a machine would require resources that the very laws of the universe do not allow. This record develops one aspect of the theoretical framework. The work is shared openly so that it can be judged by as many readers as possible: anyone who knows someone interested can pass on this single link, valid for the whole framework (with an overview in English and Italian): https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23535916. The entry page, with the complete list of all records, is https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22667516. To cite the framework: Lanciano, U. (2026). The number 1 in front of the mirror: Mathematical Materiality from the nexus to the cosmos. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23535916. The records have been deposited since 5 August 2026, each with its own date, and are released under CC BY 4.0: anyone may use them by citing the source. Objections and errors found are welcome at riverantares@gmail.com, since Zenodo has no space for comments. This record. When two observers correctly read the same quantity and compare their records, they find them in agreement, within the measurement errors. This deposit proposes to read the object both of them see as the common part of their records: what each reads from its own record, without looking at the other's, with the same value as the other (the Gács–Körner common part, with a very small tolerance when the copies are imperfect). The key word is projection: each record is very rich and mostly private; the reading projects it onto a simpler question, like a shadow, and two records that differ as wholes coincide in their projections. In the author's framework the observed object is a transposition and non-local projection of the observer's "observation matrix" (its record), and what two projections share is the trace of one non-local relation, non-local in the sense of not located in space and time, not of an influence at a distance. How it was tested. Eight formulations, nine test cases and seven criteria were registered before any calculation and tested on a small model of the kind used in quantum Darwinism (a two-valued source, N scattered carriers, two observers; classical and quantum versions). Excluded: "the common part is shared matter" (two people see the same chair with different photons: agreement 1 − 8.6 × 10⁻⁷ with 63 carriers each and no carrier in common); "the common part is having the same statistics" (two independent coins have it too); the exact common part, which is zero as soon as the copies are imperfect. Surviving: the common part with a tolerance δ (provisionally, within the class of readings tested), and a graded measure of how correlated the readings are (their mutual information). In the model it behaves as a yes-or-no: with copies that are wrong 10 % of the time it is zero up to 22 copies per observer and essentially the whole object (≥ 0.9999998 bit) from 23 copies on (δ = 10⁻⁶; 11 and 37 copies for δ = 10⁻³ and 10⁻⁹). At 23 copies the record carries 99.9998 % of the information about the object, and the common part (about 1 bit) is only 8.5 % of the whole record (about 11.8 bits). The number of copies needed depends on their quality, not on how many there are, as in the estimate for many copies of Zwolak, Riedel and Zurek (2014). In the cases examined, no statistical prediction differs from that of quantum mechanics. Prior work, first. Quantum Darwinism and "relatively objective existence" (Zurek 2003–2022; Ollivier, Poulin and Zurek 2004; Riedel and Zurek 2010); spectrum broadcast structures (Korbicz, Horodecki and Horodecki 2014; Horodecki, Korbicz and Horodecki 2015; Le and Olaya-Castro 2019); relational quantum mechanics and cross-perspective links (Rovelli 1996; Di Biagio and Rovelli 2021; Adlam and Rovelli 2022); Wigner's-friend theorems and experiments (Frauchiger and Renner 2018; Brukner 2018; Proietti et al. 2019; Bong et al. 2020; Rivlin, Engineer and Baumann 2025); agreement theorems (Aumann 1976; Contreras-Tejada et al. 2021; Leifer and Duarte 2026, who suggest as a speculation that a shared objective reality emerges from common knowledge; Cepollaro and Di Biagio 2026). As far as we found, no study defines the observed object itself as the common part of two observers' records; t
This record. Whether a mass exists above which quantum superposition stops: registered readings confronted with the 2026 interference record, and a prediction dated to 2035. Reading path: Quantum mechanics, 2 of 2 · before: Born geometry, the Tsirelson bound and the singlet · all themes. Common introduction to all the records of this series. The content of this record follows below. Mathematical Materiality (MM) in brief. Why are the laws of physics the same everywhere and at every instant, even though nothing forces matter to obey them? MM proposes an answer: the laws are not rules imposed on matter from the outside; rather, matter itself is made of mathematical relations. And mathematics cannot change: a relation binds two distinct terms everywhere and always. In logic, nothing exists on its own: to exist means to be in relation to another logical entity, and outside this web of relations nothing can exist, not even other universes. This reading already meets experimental measurements at two points. First, the ratio of dark to ordinary matter is read as 3√3 = 5.196; when left free in the fits, Planck and DESI DR2 data give 5.21–5.22 (as registered in record 2.44, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23329080). Second, the acceleration scale of galaxies is read as a₀ = cH₀/6, the same scale that appears in Verlinde's emergent gravity: the computed value is 1.09–1.18 × 10⁻¹⁰ m/s² against the measured value of 1.20 (record 2.46.1, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23506655). Both readings were formulated with the measurements already known; the tests to check them against future data are registered in the same records. In the first logical nexus between space and time — which became homogeneous with Einstein — there is a non-local phase, made only of a pure logical distinction: space is not time. Between the two there is no relation of quantitative calculation, only the logical entity they have in common, which is needed to make them exist with respect to each other. This level is not distant: it is present in every phase of reality, in every place and at every instant. It shows in entanglement, where two distant systems remain correlated more strongly than any explanation based on separate properties and free of faster-than-light influences allows, without anything physically travelling between them. In this non-local phase the two distinct terms, space and time, share only one logical element, which we shall call their greatest common divisor (GCD), just as the numbers 3 and 5 have only 1 in common. The local world arises when a relation is counted through this GCD: its multiples and its fractions form a matrix. Seen by an observer inside the system like us, the multiples appear as time and the fractions as space. When that same multiple is directly contained in the matrix of the point of observation, it turns into mass — that is, into concrete matter as we usually understand it. There is therefore a close link between time and mass, in full agreement with Einstein's relativity, which ties mass to spacetime. The observed objects, while being logically autonomous entities in their local relations, enter into relation with the observer through a logical diffraction — that is, a decomposition into fractions — of the observer's matrix. This reading also gives a reason for the limit of the speed of light, which in Einstein's relativity is instead taken as a starting principle. The speed of light is the fixed exchange rate between the multiples and the fractions of the same GCD, meaning how much space a single step of time is worth: exceeding it would mean, for some observer, covering space without counting time, and thus leaving the local world. Logic always starts from a logical relative, and this exchange rate has nothing absolute in itself either: it is a necessary relative which, inside the system, becomes an absolute hypothesis, the same for everyone and impossible to exceed. Outside the system, by contrast, it has no justification at all, because outside there is only non-existence: justifying something requires another term to relate it to, and out there there is none. Asking for a reason from outside is like asking what lies north of the North Pole. The same theoretical framework that reads space, time, mass and the observed objects also admits quantum mechanics. The non-local phase and the mirror-like logical reciprocity between the two ends of the nexus give a reason for the probabilistic behaviour of matter. When the observed object is large enough, its mass fixes it in the matrix of the point of observation: for this reason we see it in one precise place and at one precise instant. When instead the object falls below a certain mass threshold, the principal GCD (that of the point of observation) and the GCD of the diffraction that generates the object are forced to become equal, reflecting each other as in a mirror. At that point the object no longer occupies a single point of the spacetime generated by the observer, but spreads over several possible positions, and we observe it as probability. It is like having to describe the number 10 using only the number 1: the only way is to distribute the 1 over ten positions, one for each unit of the 10. Today we know that even objects made of thousands of atoms behave in this way, and no experiment has yet found the boundary. The idea that the passage from quantum to classical behaviour depends on mass is close to that of Penrose and Diósi; in MM the threshold is the point where the two GCDs, the principal one and that of the local diffraction, become equal. For all these reasons the universe behaves like a simulation without really being one. It follows exact rules, made of counts, everywhere and at every instant, but no machine runs them and no programmer wrote them: a structure of mathematical relations does not need to be computed in order to exist. Tegmark (2008) had already noted that such a simulation need not be run, while Vazza (2025) estimated that running it physically on a machine would require resources that the very laws of the universe do not allow. This record develops one aspect of the theoretical framework. The work is shared openly so that it can be judged by as many readers as possible: anyone who knows someone interested can pass on this single link, valid for the whole framework (with an overview in English and Italian): https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23535916. The entry page, with the complete list of all records, is https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22667516. To cite the framework: Lanciano, U. (2026). The number 1 in front of the mirror: Mathematical Materiality from the nexus to the cosmos. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23535916. The records have been deposited since 5 August 2026, each with its own date, and are released under CC BY 4.0: anyone may use them by citing the source. Objections and errors found are welcome at riverantares@gmail.com, since Zenodo has no space for comments. This record. Standard quantum mechanics has no mass at which a superposition stops: large objects look classical because of decoherence, the environment that keeps recording where they are. Collapse models (Ghirardi–Rimini–Weber, CSL, Diósi–Penrose) add such a limit by hand. The framework says that a threshold exists: below a certain mass level the principal GCD of the point of observation and the GCD of the diffraction that generates the object become equal, and the object spreads over several positions (see the box above). The box gives no number. This deposit tries to give the threshold a number, or to say clearly why it cannot. A second part tests two later remarks of the author: the limit cannot be fixed as a mass, because a calculation of the «fractional distance» is missing; and large distant bodies stay fixed because their size makes up for the distance. It was announced in deposit 2.64 (DOI 10.5281/zenodo.23610071). The main result: for distance, the limit is not a mass alone. In the two readings of the fractional distance that hold, it is a ratio between the size that has to be told apart and the cell of the copies that do the telling, together with the number of copies; the readings of part one with a mass threshold at the Planck scale remain possible, untested, and that the two readings are one rule of the framework is a proposal. For the state of an object the copies are the photons and molecules the environment carries away, and one copy cannot tell apart two positions closer than about half a wavelength: a 16-microgram crystal stays quantum over 2 × 10⁻¹⁸ m because about 10³⁴ thermal copies would be needed to fix it. For the way a distant observer reads an object, the cell is the diffraction cell of the observer's aperture at the object's distance: two stars of almost the same mass fall on opposite sides (the disc of Sirius B, 1.02 solar masses at 2.64 pc, inferred from its radius, is 20–60 times smaller than the finest cell of today's interferometers; τ Ceti, 0.78 at 3.65 pc, and 61 Cyg A, 0.67–0.74 at 3.49 pc, are resolved): with this instrumental classification the sample does not support a mass-only limit growing with distance. Both rules coincide with known physics (decoherence and wave optics): the framework admits them; experiments put them to the test but cannot tell them apart from standard physics. Prior work, first. Decoherence: Joos and Zeh (1985), Zurek (2003), Schlosshauer (2019); measured against separation and number of photons: Chapman et al. (1995), Kokorowski et al. (2001), Hornberger et al. (2003), Hackermüller et al. (2004). Collapse models: Károlyházy (1966), Ghirardi, Rimini and Weber (1986), Diósi (1987, 1989), Pearle (1989), Ghirardi, Pearle and Rimini (1990), Penrose (1996), the review of Bassi et al. (2013), Howl, Penrose and Fuentes (2019). Tests and limits: Nimmrichter and Hornberger (2013), Romero-Isart (2011), Donadi et al. (2021), the Majorana Demonstrator (2022), Carlesso et al. (2022), Gasbarri et
The Geometric Block Universe is a single completed geometric structure - a compact curved space carrying fields - in which every history compatible with the laws is present, together with the records that observers hold within it. Nothing in the block evolves. What an observer calls time is a relational ordering of records by internal coordinates, with a geometric direction, the logarithm of total volume, serving as the clock; where that clock stalls, a second clock built from accumulated volume carries the ordering through. Records are stable, mutually exclusive cells of a finite record space, the harmonics of low degree on a three-sphere, and an observer is a body that writes and reads such records. Three things that ordinary quantum mechanics must postulate are absent from this picture. There is no collapse: a measurement selects nothing, because every compatible outcome is already realised and a definite result is definite only relative to the observer's own record. There is no splitting of universes: the histories are labelled components of one structure, the number of them is not a primitive quantity, and nothing multiplies when a record is written. And there is no fundamental probability: the block contains only counts of qualified observer occurrences, and what an observer experiences as chance is self-location - the fraction of its own occurrences that carry a given record. Probability is an emergent appearance, not an ingredient. This paper shows that the quantum weights follow from counting. An earlier rigidity theorem of the programme showed that a positive linear incidence functional invariant under full-carrier heat resolution is proportional to volume, so that normalised incidence equals an inherited geometric density; the Born form of that density was an input, and this paper removes it. Three statements about counting- that the count of occurrences in a set of record points is the integral of a density depending on the amplitude at the point, that one attempt counts one, and that a non-interacting reader's counts cannot depend on a distant preparation, force the density to be the squared amplitude, with presence, unit counting, affinity and Born proportions for every sharp reader as consequences rather than assumptions. The Born weight is the conserved charge of the phase symmetry of each record, exact for the recorder the theory already contains, and its push-forward over states is the uniform reference distribution that earlier readers haad to be given by hand. The affine structure that makes counts quadratic is not free either: it is the positive first-order structure of the clock direction, derived for a clock that is a symmetry, and it survives the de Sitter trajectory the geometry selects with a bounce mixing 1/sinh²(πν) that is the same for every record mode. The recorder is realised on the canonical records of the five-rung carrier as a complete observer: it writes exactly distinguishable records at discrete pointer displacements, samples its pointer at the rate set by the evaluation overlap spectrum, and returns the branch weight with no threshold, no reference population and no preparation law; where the two records are not exactly distinguishable, the deviation from Born proportions is bounded and second order in their overlap. What remains assumed is stated once: that counting is local on the record manifold, that an attempt counts one, the selection of the record space, the standing of the recorder, and the identification of occurrence fraction with first-person credence. An unconditional derivation is not claimed. One consequence differs from quantum mechanics with continuous pointers and is recorded as a candidate signature: a recorded two-branch superposition decoheres, as a function of the write duration, with exact nulls, a partial revival of 21/91 at half the pointer period, full recurrence when the fibre closes, and a residual average coherence of 9/91.
Papers I and II derived gravitational geometry and second-order dynamics from finite accessibility without invoking measurement, observation protocols, or collapse as primitive notions. This paper extends the operational program to the measurement sector, deriving the structure of record formation and probabilistic weights from the same finite accessibility and compositional constraints. Finite accessibility restricts admissible operations on a subsystem to a proper operator subalgebra. Because bounded certification excludes operators requiring nonlocal coordination or arbitrarily fine phase resolution, the accessible algebra is strictly smaller than the full operator algebra. When a system becomes correlated with orthogonal environment sectors, off-diagonal operators between those sectors fall outside the accessible algebra. The reduced state is therefore indistinguishable, under all admissible operations, from its diagonal ensemble. Definiteness emerges as an algebraic consequence of sector restriction, not as a collapse postulate. The weights of these sectors are fixed uniquely by compositional consistency. Phase invariance, multiplicativity under independent refinement, and stability under record coarse-graining constrain any admissible assignment of sector weights to satisfy a functional equation whose only continuous, non-contextual solution is quadratic in amplitude. The Born rule therefore arises as the unique invariant measure compatible with finite accessibility. Irreversibility follows from action scaling: reversal requires operators outside the admissible tensor algebra and incurs action cost proportional to the number of correlated subsystems. Since admissible operations are bounded by the action gap, macroscopic record reversal is excluded. Measurement introduces no new physical primitives beyond finite accessibility, locality, and compositional stability. Record formation, classical definiteness, and Born probabilities are structural consequences of algebraic restriction under finite accessibility. **This paper is part of the Finite Accessibility series, which reconstructs gravitational geometry, quantum dynamics, gauge structure, cosmological perturbation theory, and the dark sector from a single operational primitive: a finite certification ceiling ω* governing the maximum rate at which physical relations can be maintained across extended domains.** **Introductory papers** - Geometric Limits to Coherent Timekeeping in Extended Reference Frames — https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18824556 - Accessibility Selection Law (ASL) — https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18824649 - Phase Boundary Gravity — https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18824707 **Pillars (numbered I–IV)** - Paper I: Deriving Gravitational Geometry and Schrödinger Dynamics from Finite Accessibility — https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18601600 - Paper II: Deriving Inertia, Motion, and Wave Propagation from Finite Accessibility — https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18625174 - Paper III: Accessible State Spaces, Record Stability, and the Emergence of Quantum Statistics — https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18625192 - Paper IV: Frame Dissolution, the Certification Ceiling, and Observable Deformations — https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18654458 **Extension papers** - Dark Matter from Finite Accessibility — https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18654433 - Dark Energy from Finite Accessibility — https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18654523 - No-Go Theorems and the Admissibility Corridor — https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18654493 - Gauge Structure from Finite Accessibility — https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18928152 - Perturbation Theory from Finite Accessibility — https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18928213 **Experimental paper** - Experimental Probes of Finite Accessibility: GW Dispersion and Vacuum Path Independence — https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18931126 **Keywords:** Born rule derivation, measurement problem, quantum statistics, finite accessibility, operator subalgebra, record formation, definiteness emergence, wave function collapse, compositional consistency, accessible state spaces, action gap, irreversibility, sector restriction, quantum foundations, algebraic quantum mechanics, decoherence