I don't understand your first paragraph at all, so I can't answer it. For the observation on Roger Penrose, you've missed my point. Sure, the consequences of s

I don't understand your first paragraph at all, so I can't answer it. For the observation on Roger Penrose, you've missed my point. Sure, the consequences of special relativity are highly unintuitive if you try to think about them. But it doesn't contradict any day to day observations you directly make with your senses: it accurately predicts the exact numbers your intuition (or Newtonian mechanics) would predict for day to day phenomena. The problems only appear for phenomena that you can't observe easily, like spaceships moving at significant fractions of the speed of light. I've never been on one of these, so it's not surprising that it might behave differently to what I would expect. In contrast, the Schrodinger equation predicts that if I throw a ball, it will end up in many different locations at once. This is obviously wrong. So, you need to introduce another postulates (the Born rule, and the concept of a measurement, or at least the concept of an environment) for QM to not be in stark conflict with our day to day experience.