You are using vague ill defined words that just end up confounding topics in a meaningless way. For one, Schrodinger's cat premise has absolutely nothing to do with superpositions of multiple cats. There is no such thing as superpositions of multiple objects, especially if they are distinguishable like cats. Superposition are over different possible states of a single system not over multiple copies of a system. You can not interfere two cats together. The most charitable interpretation of what you are saying is some abuse of the language used to describe indistinguishable particles or some statement in second quantization, but that also has nothing to do with Schrödinger's cat.
>There is no such thing as superpositions of multiple objects, especially if they are distinguishable like cats.
Several superpositions of several cats makes an ensemble of experiments over which it would not be as difficult to detect entanglement as it would be in the case of one cat, which is the case that Aaronson describes.
Just write the ket describing that state and specify over what Hilbert state it is. At best, "superposition" does not mean what you are using that word for. It just sounds like nonsense right now.
Take several of these and you can collect data across several expeirments that shows they're in a superposition, but if you only have one, Aaronson's argument applies.
