Curiosity Killed the Cat

Your rating: None
Average: 3.1 (11 votes)

We gave the facade of being established, but in truth, we were still experimenting. If word got out, there would have been a lot of rules to follow and the taxman would have robbed us of our reinvestment capital. That’s why we took great pains to keep our operation between layers.

“We offer immortality, and if you’re the right fit, we add revivability to the package.” Most of them shaky and teary eyed, were overkeen to shove their fortunes in our hands - they couldn’t bear the thought of their sick cat dying. The first interaction with clients was the last, and almost always short. I say almost, because there was one exception - she furrowed her brow and asked, “if my cat is immortal, why would there be a need to revive him?”

Not long after, I was handcuffed in a small, white walled room. I knew I was on my own now - the others would have vanished, untraceable, into a deeper layer. We were trained for what came next. The jury would be easily swayed by the lawyer’s line of questioning, so it was of paramount importance to be logical and prepare for all possibilities.

The hearing was very different to what I imagined. There was no public audience, I had no legal representative, and there were only two members in the jury.
“Tell us about the process.”
“We sell immortality and revivability. We do this by exploiting the laws of the tiny world. We convert the cat to its constituent tiny particles and we make five additional sets. The six sets are divided into three entangled pairs, which are separated into two boxes; one is for our clients to bring home and the other is kept in storage at our facilities.”
“How would that make the cat immortal?”
“The particles only self-assemble into a cat if the box is opened, after which, there would be equal chance it would remain terminally ill or die soon after. Hence, the cat would remain immortal in the box if no-one checked on it. Clients bought hope and the idea of immortality. Deep down, they suspected it was a scam. They never opened the box, just in case. She was different, she opened the box.”
“Ok. So it was a scam and the cat was already dead by the time the box was opened.”
“The cat could have been alive, terminally ill, or dead soon after the box was opened - both possibilities existed. Everyone is happy if it's alive. But if it dies, that’s our opportunity to fulfil our revivability promise. Our box picks up on it and a simple three step process is set in motion. All traces of the deceased are removed before the blink of an eye. A dead cat would force entanglement with one of the spare sets in the same box. Since this spare set was originally entangled with a set in the storage box, the latter would undergo conditional transformation into the dead cat, which we then take care of. The dead cat in the client box would have been destroyed in the process.”
“She should be left with no cat, how come there was a living cat in her box?”
“Replacing the dead with the living was just as straightforward. The set that self assembled into a dead cat was originally entangled with a set of particles we held in storage. Since the dead cat was dead, the set that it was entangled with must be living. A living cat in the storage box would force entanglement with one of the spare sets in the same box. Since this spare set was originally entangled with a set in the client box, the latter would undergo conditional transformation into the living cat. The living cat in the storage box would be destroyed in the process.”
I held eye contact the entire time. It was apparent that he was confused, but was trying to hide it.
“Following your line of logic, it’s not the same cat. Instead of making it immortal, or reviving it when it died, you destroyed it and then replaced it. Is her cat, the one that she took to you, dead?”
I anticipated the line of questioning. I thought I had three options: 1) argue that the “replacement” is identical to the deceased, so the cat was technically still alive (after all, there is only one cat in existence); 2) deny that the cat’s death had anything to do with me; or 3) somehow fuse the two. I took a gamble.
“Yes, and no. You see, -”
“You have contradicting statements in your argument. There are only two possibilities: yes or no.”
I lost composure, “If you must point fingers, curiosity killed the cat!”
“Yes or no?”

My answer no longer mattered. I was either crazy or guilty in their eyes. I felt trapped. They were trying to understand and I was trying to explain, but at different wavelengths.

I wasn’t charged for what I thought I was there for; I got ten years for tax fraud and negligence. The last I heard, the government invested heavily in an institute dedicated to human teleportation.

About the Author: 
She goes where curiosity takes her - as of now, it's "spooky action at a distance".