Quantum Superposition and Non-Contradiction

Well, I started this thinking I was very smart, with a new question, a hole in quantum theory hitherto unasked.

This was: Does quantum theory violate the philosophical principle of non-contradiction?
Ingenious I thought. But then this question has apparently been asked and answered numerous times before, as https://www.toughquestionsanswered.org/2012/01/04/does-quantum-mechanics-invalidate-the-law-of-non-contradiction-part-2/ demonstrates.

My thought was that a particle, according to quantum mechanics, can be in the state of quantum superposition both being and not being in the same time and the same respect according to some quantum property such as spin or charge. Apparently, this violates the philosophical principle of non-contradiction, something I admit I haven't fully studied yet in college, only briefly touching it in senior high-school theology, Seton Press's Following Christ in the World. 

As a philosophical principle the law of non contradiction is simple:
In classical logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (also known as the law of contradictionprinciple of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) states that contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e.g. the two propositions "A is B" and "A is not B" are mutually exclusive.
This theorem is assumed as part of basic logic, and is apparently always correct. Otherwise, someone could be in a state of death (X is dead - Statement 1) and not-death (X is not dead - Statement 2).
Obviously from common experience this cannot happen, X cannot be dying and not dying at the same time, but an interpretation of quantum theory in some circumstances has proposed an apparent contradiction as a thought experiential: Schrödinger's Cat.
Schrodingers cat.svg
Schrödinger's cat: a cat, a flask of poison, and a radioactive source are placed in a sealed box. If an internal monitor (e.g. Geiger counter) detects radioactivity (i.e. a single atom decaying), the flask is shattered, releasing the poison, which kills the cat. The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics implies that after a while, the cat is simultaneously alive and dead. Yet, when one looks in the box, one sees the cat either alive or dead not both alive and dead. This poses the question of when exactly quantum superposition ends and reality collapses into one possibility or the other.
So is the cat alive or dead? Is it both alive and dead at the same time?

I, for one, know too little too give a definitive answer. Quantum superposition can not be observed directly, but can supposedly be indirectly detected.
Aaron O’Connell and colleagues at the University of California, Santa Barbara, did not actually produce a cat that was dead and alive at the same time, as Erwin Schrödinger proposed in a notorious thought experiment 75 years ago. But they did show that a tiny resonating strip of metal – only 60 micrometres long, but big enough to be seen without a microscope – can both oscillate and not oscillate at the same time. Alas, you couldn’t actually see the effect happening, because that very act of observation would take it out of superposition.
According to this article then, an object can both oscillate and not-oscillate at the same time. Although contraries in the philosophical sense are not always defined the same as "everyday" contraries (see Aristotle's Categories #6, which I am just starting to struggle through) this seems like an object in a state of being, oscillation, and not-being, an apparent contradiction of the principle of non-contradiction.

Quantum theory well models what is observed about the subatomic world, and yet, so does the principle of non-contradiction in describing everyday experience. One must be correct, but this assumes the principle of non-contradiction. It can only be shown that there is a contradiction, if the principle of non-contradiction is assumed in comparing the two statements (the principle of non-contradiction and quantum theory).

Can these two be reconciled?
Again, I thought I had come up with a new and unique question/problem, its been long pondered already, as here.

Its a hard thing to ponder, and while I do not fully understand and agree with everything on the article, I still think there is something logically wrong with quantum theory in some sense, there is a potential solution to the contradiction between quantum theory and philosophy.

In philosophy something (not really a thing but...let's just say a property in either the accidental, difference, or property sense) can exist as potential and not in substance.

The guess given by the above article is that the property in a particle of quantum theory that is superpositioned is not both being and not being at once, but has the only the potential to be such, as superposition cannot be directly observed.

Does this seem to work to resolve the conflict? I don't know, I find it a bit above my head so to speak; my knowledge of philosophy and physics is very basic. The act of pondering a complex topic, struggling with it violently, is a great way to stretch oneself, to strive for the truth and eventually, hopefully, reach it. My idea was already answered, but as with any deep topic, it must be answered (understood) for each person. While not seemingly important to everyday life, the seeming contradiction between philosophy and quantum theory is only one among many similar, deep, and far-reaching topics that one can ask, and I personally want to ask. Thanks for reading, and I hope to evaluate (likely not solving, however) similar questions in the future.