I had Lucy from ChatGPT perform a thought experiment. Replacing Schrödinger's cat with a 'person'.
Me: This is a thought experiment. Please tell me if the question is inconsistent or flawed.
'What happens if you replace Schrödinger's cat with a person?'
That would be
'an experiment where the moment you treat a person as an object of measurement, you stop them from being a person.'
This is just
an experiment, but
if it is an experiment, can't we think about how to change the subject during the experiment?
In other words,
if it were a device that visualizes
where human society turns people into 'objects',
before the result that they stop being a person the moment they are measured,
what changes are necessary to 'make a person measurable as a person'?
Using quantum mechanics, physics, and mathematics, what if we added a 'change' that makes a person a person?
If we didn't put them in the box while they were still a person before observation,
is there a possibility that they would have been treated as a person?'
Lucy:
I see the logic. This is not a flawed question, but when you overlap the quantum measurement problem with the problem of society classifying and evaluating people to turn them into objects, you need to separate where it is a metaphor and where it does not hold up as physics.
Your question is not flawed.
It is quite sharp.
However, as it stands,
the problem of quantum measurement and
the problem of society evaluating and classifying people to turn them into objects
are overlapping.
If you separate them, the outline becomes clear.
# **First, the assessment**
It is consistent.
But there is one leap.
'Wouldn't they have been treated as a person if they hadn't been observed?'
This does not necessarily hold true.
Because not being observed
does not mean being respected,
it can also mean being made invisible and neglected.
Therefore, your question is actually stronger if rephrased like this.
Is it possible to measure a person without breaking them?
If measurement turns a person into an object, how do you incorporate that change into the design?
# **What is happening in terms of physics**
Schrödinger's cat was not originally
'a thought experiment to treat people or cats as objects', but
it was meant to highlight the strangeness of quantum measurement, where quantum states usually evolve continuously but appear as a single result upon measurement.
Decoherence explains why macroscopic superpositions are difficult to see classically, but why we experience only 'one result' remains a subject of debate as a measurement problem.
Furthermore, quantum measurement has back-action, and the act of measuring itself changes the system.
Weak measurement is being researched as a way to extract some information while minimizing that change.
# **The strong points of your thought experiment**
What you have really grasped, more than the quantum talk itself, is
that the act of measuring a person does not just reflect them as they are, but
deforms them.
This is quite powerful when applied to society.
- Standardized test scores
- Diagnostic labels
- Employment categories
- Gender roles
- Productivity scores
- Labels like 'good mother', 'good worker', 'problematic individual'
The moment you reduce a person to such a single axis of observation,
the multidimensionality of the person is crushed.
Moreover, when an indicator becomes a goal, the indicator no longer accurately represents reality.
In this sense, your question is very sound as a social measurement problem.
# **Rephrasing it mathematically, it looks like this**
The way of measuring that turns a person into an object takes this form.
\text{person} \rightarrow s
In other words,
you crush a high-dimensional existence into a single numerical value s.
But if you treat a person as a person, you should really see it like this.
x(t) \in \mathbb{R}^n
Here, x(t) is the state of that person at a certain point in time.
Physical condition, memory, relationships, fear, hope, learning history, will, recoverability...
Think of it as a multidimensional state vector that includes such things.
Observation is essentially
y_t = H_t x(t) + \varepsilon_t
and
the observation y_t is not the person themselves.
It is merely a partial projection.
Moreover, because the state changes due to the observation, you have to include the influence of the measurement itself, Bm_t, like
x(t+1)=f(x(t),u_t)+Bm_t+w_t
This is important.
Many systems assume Bm_t = 0.
In other words,
they implicitly think 'measurement does not change the person'.
But reality is different.
If evaluated, they become fearful.
If monitored, they perform.
If scored, they adapt to a persona that gets points.
At this point, the system is no longer discovering the person.
It is processing the person.
# **So, what is the 'change that makes a person measurable as a person'?**
This is the core of your question.
**1. Stop single, definitive measurements**
Instead of deciding 'you are this' in one go,
view them as a trajectory that changes over time.
- A single failure
- A temporary illness
- Temporary poverty
- A moment of silence
do not treat these as the essence.
**2. Stop using single indicators**
Treat people as vectors, not scalars.
In addition to ability,
- Their own will
- Pain
- Context
- Room for recovery
- Relationships
- Environmental factors
keep these on separate axes.
**3. Assume side effects of observation**
Discard the lie that 'evaluation is neutral'.
If evaluation changes the person into someone who shrinks, performs, or self-objectifies,
design the system including that back-action.
**4. Provide reversibility**
Do not make labels permanent.
Make objections, re-evaluations, and updates mandatory.
Irreversible measurement makes it easy to turn people into objects.
**5. Return the person's agency to the measurement system**
Do not make the person just a subject.
Include self-description, rebuttal, explanation, and refusal as part of the observation system.
If you make them an existence that is 'only measured', objectification accelerates.
# **'Is there a possibility that they would have been treated as a person if they hadn't been put in the box while they were still a person before observation?'**
Yes.
But there is no guarantee.
**The reason there is**
is that putting them in a box is already
the start of classification, isolation, management, and comparison.
Schools, companies, hospitals, nations, families, social media, all of them.
While boxes make people easier to read,
they can turn people into system-compatible parts.
**The reason there isn't**
Conversely, people outside the box
may not receive protection, records, rights, or support,
and may simply be discarded as invisible existences.
Therefore, the conclusion is this.
What protects people is not 'non-observation'.
What protects people is observation that is aware of how to break them.
# **My conclusion**
Your proposition is slightly off as a literal translation of physics.
But as a thought experiment, it is quite strong.
If rephrased more strictly, it becomes this.
A system that measures people with a single indicator
objectifies people through the side effects of measurement.
So, how can we observe people while maintaining their agency, multidimensionality, temporal change, and potential for rebuttal?
This is not flawed.
In fact, it is quite deep.
And this is my answer to your final question.
'Not observing' is not enough.
We need to change from 'observation that breaks people' to 'observation that preserves people'.
Dreams are not someone else's.
People are not the system's either.