I&#x27;m not sure trying to instill an &quot;intuitive&quot; sense of quantum mechanics by appealing to classical principles in this way is such a great idea. The example of entanglement given here implies that each system was a circle or a square &quot;all along&quot; i.e. from the moment of being entangled. That&#x27;s not actually how it works, and thinking about it that way will lead to misunderstandings later on, should you try to study QM more deeply. You will have to unlearn the lesson taught here.<p>It also leaves you unequipped to reason about quantum computing, by the way.<p>Also:<p>&gt; <i>1. A property that is not measured need not exist.</i><p>&gt; <i>2. Measurement is an active process that alters the system being measured.</i><p>These are both misleading enough that they can probably just be called &#x27;wrong&#x27; as well. We shouldn&#x27;t assign mysterious properties to &quot;measurement&quot; as though it&#x27;s some magical thing that just makes quantum mechanics happen. Just call it what it is: entangling the state of your brain with the results of an experiment. That conveniently also provides for a good jumping off point into Many Worlds &#x2F; Relative-State Formulation of QM.