> If you simply stick a cat in a box and link its fate to the outcome of some quantum event, you’re not likely to put it in a superposition of alive and dead, b

> If you simply stick a cat in a box and link its fate to the outcome of some quantum event, you’re not likely to put it in a superposition of alive and dead, because decoherence will almost instantly force it into one state or the other. This is a non-sequitur. Decoherence will not force it into one state, but merely prevent us (in practice, but crucially not in principle) from detecting interference between the two states. It is still in a superposition. When am I required to stop treating it as a superposition? When it entangles with me. From the MWI perspective, there are then two copies of me, and each must say that there is no superposition. In other words, from "my" perspective, the superposition ends precisely with me. Which part of "me"? My toe? My nose? No, clearly it has something to do with my consciousness. A materialist might say that consciousness is a strictly physical process, and when the relevant components entangle with the system, that is when the superposition ends (from my perspective). An idealist might say that consciousness is the very fabric of reality, and so it's obvious that "becoming conscious of an outcome" and that outcome becoming real are one and the same event. Nonetheless, once this happens, nobody in "my world" can demonstrate interference, even in principle. In this precise sense, you do occupy a unique role in what you call "your world."