The authors of the article express their personal viewpoint on the definition of subjectivity.
The definition of what it means to be objective in-and-of-itself is up for debate (this definition can be thought of as inter-subjectivity rather than objectivity per se), but that debate is not purpose of this Letter.
I can also agree that a specially prepared environment, for example one consisting of a wall of entangled qubits, does not ensure objectivity, since it simply continues the chain of superpositions: atom, Geiger counter, vial, cat, wall in the thought experiment. But our world is arranged such that this situation does not occur, at least without deliberate intervention by an experimenter.
I tried to imagine such a thought experiment — it is possible with a qubit, but not with a cat. In fact, this would mean creating a long-lived quantum memory, which I do not rule out. Does this negate objectivity?
The authors of the article express their personal viewpoint on the definition of subjectivity.
I can also agree that a specially prepared environment, for example one consisting of a wall of entangled qubits, does not ensure objectivity, since it simply continues the chain of superpositions: atom, Geiger counter, vial, cat, wall in the thought experiment. But our world is arranged such that this situation does not occur, at least without deliberate intervention by an experimenter.
I tried to imagine such a thought experiment — it is possible with a qubit, but not with a cat. In fact, this would mean creating a long-lived quantum memory, which I do not rule out. Does this negate objectivity?