QM differes drastically from classical physics. That’s P’s point here. IMHO this comes later than and may depend on Schrödinger’s equation. @noAxioms states in an earlier post that superposition is not a contradiction. Yet the feline is dead and alive because the particle has/hasn’t decayed. The Schrödinger equation isn’t illogical in any way. We don’t arrive at e.g., as previously stated, 1 = 0. Do we? Non liquet.
I read your Medium article. A physicist summarized QM as a) probabilistic, b) superposition, and c) entanglement. Let’s look at the role of the observer in superposition. The state of a particle is a blend of possible states. If an observation is not made, it stays that way. Once we observe i.e. we make a measurement, the wave-function collapses and we have a definite answer to questions like, is the particle spin up or spin down?, is it here or there?, etc. The double-slit experiment is another situation where measurement has an effect, in this case whether (say) an electron is a wave or a particle. A question that bothers me is, how does the electron respond to the observation or the lack of it?
I’m also intrigued by Schrodinger’s equation, which according to Penrose describes the system from minute to minute in a very classical manner. Upon measurement the wave function collapses to definiteness. I feel there’s a gap here that needs to be bridged 
.
Indeed the classical view of the world is that subject and object are distinct. Does the moon exist when nobody is looking at it? ~ Einstein. This is the question that QM answers with the measurement problem vis-a-vis wave function.