I agree with a lot of this. But I still disagree with: > With classical physics, you can reason based on your lifetime of observations of everyday objects. [..

I agree with a lot of this. But I still disagree with: > With classical physics, you can reason based on your lifetime of observations of everyday objects. [...] QM is abstracted so far away that it is incredibly hard to test anything intuitively. Most intuition that people have about physics which comes from everyday life is wrong. Even momentum is not intuitive; that was not figured out for thousands of years, and children and laypeople still get it wrong all the time. Gravity is not innately intuitive, especially with orbits. Electricity is not intuitive. Magnetism is not intuitive. But you learn the rules and you work through problems, and you start to see how the rules play out. And you develop an intuition for all of these phenomena that arises from your deep, high-level understanding of the rules, not from everyday experience. An electrical engineer could look at a circuit diagram and tell me the gist of what it will do, even though she has no direct perception of electricity. An aerospace engineer could tell me without solving any equations what would happen if we gave this orbiting spacecraft a little push in this direction, even though he's never been to orbit. And so on. QM is just another branch of physics like all the others in which to learn the rules and gain a conceptual understanding beyond merely cranking equations. It is not special in that way.