Schrödinger's Cat can't be any worse than Greg's Cat...

Something either is, or it is not.  Reality is reality.  You can't cause something to exist using theory and supposition. 

The state of the cat does not depend on the observer.  It's either alive, or it's dead.  To pretend the state of the cat changes only when you open the door to look is just as absurd. 

Bullshit.  I'm calling bullshit.  Read up on the double slit experiment (or better yet, watch this friendly video) then try to say that with a straight face.

You are the only contemporary physicist, besides Laue, who sees that one cannot get around the assumption of reality, if only one is honest.
Most of them simply do not see what sort of risky game they are playing with reality—reality as something independent of what is experimentally
established. Their interpretation is, however, refuted most elegantly by your system of radioactive atom + amplifier + charge of gunpowder + cat
in a box, in which the psi-function of the system contains both the cat alive and blown to bits. Nobody really doubts that the presence or absence
of the cat is something independent of the act of observation.

-- Albert Einstein, to Schrödinger, 1950

Kinds of reminds me of some philosophical analogies.

A persons Reality/observation depends on where they're standing.

Two men stare at a coin (or piece of paper).
1 from the front and 1 from the side.
They argue is it thin or wide.
They yell at each other "I'm looking right at it" "it is thin!" "It is wide!"
Each telling the other "you are an idiot!"
Of course, It is both thin and wide.
But they will never know if they don't take one step to the side.
To see the other's perspective.

A man in Hawaii calls a man in Seattle.
Asks what color the sky is
Man in Seattle says it's gray.
Man in Hawaii says it's blue.
Their friend, who is watching a beautiful sunset conferences in and says the sky is pink, orange and yellow.

What color is the sky? It depends.

Not quite quantum mechanics/ Schrodingers Cat but seems related to some of the theories in the article.
And like Tom's double slit reference.
Do electrons act like waves or matter? both.

Of course opinion is a whole nother matter.

You're illustrating the difference between reality and perception.  I agree perception to the observer is that person's impression of reality.  But perceiving something to be real it does not cause that something to BE as you perceive it in reality.

Reality is what reality is. 

but reality can be plural. It is often not one or the other. But both or many.

Perception is a factor in beliefs and reactions to what you perceive to be the truth, but it stops there.  Reality isn't changed because of your perception and your observation.  What has to change is your acknowledgement that what you see is not always the truth, and you must temper your belief in what is real based on that. 

i agree. Kind of my point

Without additional evidence to support your belief, there is always room for error, thus room for being wrong.

there's always room for being wrong.

However, once all doubt of reality is removed, it is absurd to continue arguing your own perception is more true than reality supported by direct observation and evidence which excludes false perceptions..

here's the weakness. All doubt of whose reality. Reality supported by direct observation is based in perception. And evidence is almost always subject to perception.
Just look at how many theories there are contradicting or modifying Schrodinger's cat.

The experiment is meant to describe how absurd the concept of quantum mechanics really is.

I mostly agree with Tom_G that giving up was bad. Einstein refused to give up such thoughts, and declared his opinion that "God does not play dice with the universe." Perhaps what happened is that physicists simply couldn't agree on any one answer, so they set aside that issue to march forward with rigorous, yet narrow scientific experiments and calculations, in the hopes that one day something will be uncovered that could shed new light on the correct interpretation.

See, I think we're on the cusp pf a grand "whoops, our bad" just now.  There have been lots of them.  Flat earth.  Earth-centric solar system.  Smoking.  There are myriad examples (I do love being able to slip "myriad" into a conversation) of scientific or medical powers authoritatively saying "This is the truth" only to turn around later and say "whoops, our bad."  And now, I think we're beating our heads against that wall.  Dark matter?  Quantum indeterminacy and entanglement?  Cosmic strings?  Come on!  We are WRONG.  Sure, we've made some repeatable results.  Heck, the atom bomb is hard to argue with.  But we're spinning increasingly implausible systems to account for our observations.  Give it up, I say.  The Earth is not flat. 

But, as I stand poised to rip apart the nature of reality as the rest of you know it, I stand by my position that argument from emotion is not a fallacy.  I did not reason my way to some of the biggest mistakes in my life; nor did I reason my way to love.  Come to think of it, just why am I so hung up on reason as a good thing?