That does not get rid of the self contradiction. " A circle with each corner being a right angle " is a self-contradictory sentence. Similarly, no one can understand what a married bachelor is.
Who cares about self-contradiction? What was asked is whether a "square circle" is comprehensible.
That's a different requirement, and a square circle is indeed comprehensible — comprehensible enough to know that there, in fact, cannot be any such things because the necessary requirements do indeed contradict each other. Similarly with "married bachelor." It is a concept that is perfectly comprehensible, and because we can comprehend it, we realize that there can be no such thing.
Granted, self-contradictions are many in quantum mechanics. My point is that for us humans they explain nothing.
Many physicists have abandoned hope of any explanation and have become logical positivists. * In other words they accept that their equations accurately predict results but explain nothing.
QM is not self-contradictory. The implications of QM are counterintiutive to the extreme, but not self-contradictory. You cannot use QM to come up with two disparate answers to the same physical question.
* Logical positism is famous for being self refuting. Logical positism's fundamental belief is that if a proposition is neither analytical or empirical it is gibberish. Is the proposition " any proposition that is neither analytical or empirical is gibberish " analytical? Nope! Is it empirical? Nope! Therefore the central idea of logical positism is gibberish!
No. Using a system to analyze itself is in many ways improper. Otherwise, every
system is 'self-defeating' and the entire intellectual edifice collapses. If you subscribe to logical positivism, you accept its axioms as true. "Any proposition that is neither analytical or empirical is gibberish," is not part of the set of positions that may be evaluated as gibberish — it's an axiom of the philosophy. You can evaluate that axiom on other grounds, but then you are not being a logical positivist.