Superposition-of-state suggests that something can both be and not be at the same time and in the same place. However, as I've stated again and again, something cannot both be and not be at the same time and place. Of course something might be at 10:00 and not be at 10:01, but that's not at the same time. Something might be in the kitchen but not be in the living room, but that's not at the same place.
If there were such a thing as superposition-of-state, then the state of when and where wouldn't matter to the resolution. But since there is no such thing as a superposition-of-state that can be resolved by an observer, since we have already agreed that an observer is irrelevant, immaterial and has nothing to do with the actual state of things anyway, then it's all just a pretend academic exercise of no consequence to life, the universe and well, just everything.
oooooOOOOOooooo
The key point as you state is that we don't know what the orientation of the electron is but that doesn't mean it doesn't have one and only one without you looking. Let's let away from these magnetic fields and eliminate a variable. What if we have a particle pair created by the vacuum energy - a neutron and an anti-neutron - that escape annihilation and go their separate ways. Neutrons are immune to magnetic fields. Are both particles BOTH neutron AND anti-neutron at the same time until you intersect one or the other, or are both particles EITHER neutron OR anti-neutron?
As to the coin, you suggest that the floor itself is making a measurement turning the coin into an either heads-up/or tails-up state. If the floor is making a measurement, then the floor itself is an observer. Thus, you are suggesting that inanimate (non-living) things are observers. Thus, everything is an observer. But if everything is an observer there can be no time available for any uncertainty to arise in any scenario and thus no superposition-of-state can ever come to pass.
But let’s get away from the everything is an observer back to only consciousness minds are observers, a scenario I think most people would find a more reasonable option.
Let's examine further the absurdity that something can both be and not be at the same time and in the same place, otherwise known in the trade as superposition-of-state.
Assume you are home. How many things about your home are you NOT observing at this very second? Better yet, assume that you are asleep and thus not observing anything external to you.
Now if you take quantum mechanics to its logical conclusion, while you are asleep, your clocks are in a superposition-of-state showing all possible times simultaneously.
The paint on your walls is in a superposition-of-state of all possible colours.
Your stove/oven is both on and off at the same time since it too is in a superposition-of-state.
Your furniture is in every possible combination anyone could imagine that is consistent with the laws, principles and relationships of physics.
Your pet dog is both alive and dead (just like Schrodinger's Cat) and in fact might be in a superposition of every possible breed of dog that exists!
In fact you might not even be on Planet Earth anymore but your abode is in a superposition-of-state and thus you are asleep in all other possible cosmic real estate options consistent with the laws, principles and relationships of physics.
Of course you wake up and do your observational thing and all those 'what-if' superposition-of-state wave-functions collapse and everything appears absolutely normal.
Now if the above macro make-believe scenario is nuts, it's nuts to say your clocks were in a superposition-of-state showing all possible configurations, then when applied to the realm of the micro, well that 'this is nuts' should also equally apply.
oooooOOOOOooooo
There are superposition-of-states and then there are Superposition-Of-States. If what you mean by superposition-of-state is that if a zillion observers observe something, like a cup or a coin or a rotating globe at one particular time then collectively when they compare notes they have a zillion different perspectives or points of view. That's okay and I guess one could say that based on the zillion descriptions there was a superposition-of-state afoot at the one point in time. One thing was many things to many people, sort of like the six blind people trying to describe an elephant with each touching just one part of the animal.
Replace a zillion observers with just one who moves from place to place; position to position through and including those zillion places or positions and observes that same object but through a zillion units of time, one unit per place or position or location. That one observer will get a zillion different perspectives or points of view and thus might conclude that there was a superposition-of-state afoot since the one object appeared to be many different things at different times.
But that's not what is meant by superposition-of-state in quantum mechanics. Based on my understanding it means that the object in question is actually in all possible and allowable orientations at the same time and place (with respect to some other point) without benefit of any observation or measurement yet to hand. My objection to that kind of superposition-of-state is that the object is actually in just one and only one state or orientation (obviously with respect to some other point). That one state or orientation could appear to be a zillion states or orientations if a zillion observers suddenly appeared but only because the one object was being viewed from a zillion different angles. Or, as I like to phase it, something cannot both be and not be at the same time and in the same place.
oooooOOOOOooooo
COLLAPSE OF THE WAVE-FUNCTION
Obviously many things can be abstract and true at the same time. Wednesday is an abstract concept yet it truly rolls around every seventh day! But not all abstract things or ideas are true. You recall that the White Queen believed in six impossible things before breakfast!
If you wish to call superposition-of-state just an abstraction, a mental concept, an idea to wrap your little grey cells around the equally abstract mental concept of probability or uncertainty, that's fine - but that mental image doesn't translate into physical reality.
Consider that you have two choices or a choice between two scenarios.
#1: A coin (stand-in for an elementary or fundamental particle) is BOTH heads-up AND tails-up at some designated time and place. Along comes an observer (however you care to define exactly what an observer is) and observes the superposition-of-state coin. The coin is now EITHER heads-up OR tails-up because the relevant wave-function collapsed. Let's say the coin is now via observation tails-up. A resolution has been made for and by the observer.
#2: A coin (stand-in for an elementary or fundamental particle) is EITHER heads-up OR tails-up at some designated time and place. It just so happens that it happens to be tails-up. Along comes an observer (however you care to define exactly what an observer is) and observes the coin. The coin is now via an observation tails-up - obviously. A resolution has been made for and by the observer.
Now the question is, which of the two choices is the more rational scenario as taught in formal Logic 101 classes; as an obvious part of ordinary common sense; and the more acceptable position for Occam of Razor fame? I suggest that option #2 sets the general standard for what we take to be reality. Option #1 belongs in 'The Twilight Zone' or with the White Queen.
The alleged superposition-of-state in any given scenario must take place at a particular time and place, but the general concept of superposition-of-state is not dependent on any specific time and place.
As I wrote somewhere else, the mathematics of quantum physics is beyond any dispute. It produces the gadgets and gizmos that assist in the production of one-third of the world's GDP. I have no quarrel with quantum physics mathematics. However, the mathematics could be spot on while the proposed mechanisms are iffy. I'm in the middle of reading quantum physicist Michio Kaku's latest book "Physics of the Future: The Inventions That Will Transform Our Lives" (2011). He lists some of the principles of quantum physics, like superposition-of-state, but then notes that "No one knows where these bizarre laws come from. They are simply postulates, with no explanation" (page 177).
oooooOOOOOooooo
SUPERPOSITION-OF-STATE
Here's the fundamental question. How did the cosmos manage to strut its stuff when it was all tied up in superposition-of-state knots and there were no observers yet thought of in anyone's philosophy to collapse wave-functions?
If there were however no actual superposition-of-states prior to the origin, evolution and eventual existence of observers, enabling the cosmos to strut its stuff, why should there literally be superposition-of-states in existence post the origin, evolution and existence of observers?
And if superposition-of states are not actual or literal but just abstractions of possibilities or probabilities held in the conscious minds of potential observers, then as far as the cosmos goes - and this is what really counts - it's all irrelevant, immaterial, of no consequence and collectively a total non-event.
oooooOOOOOooooo
CONCLUSION: COLLAPSE OF THE WAVE-FUNCTION REVISITED
For those of you who have absolute faith that something can both be and not be at the same time and in the same place (i.e. - in a superposition-of-state), here's an ultimate test of your faith and your nerve. In the Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment, the radioactive nucleus, unobserved, had a 50/50 chance of going poof within one hour. Thus, for the duration of that hour, the radioactive nucleus had a superposition-of-state of being both decayed and not decayed. The cat, whose fate depended upon that state of affairs was therefore in a superposition-of-state of being both dead and alive at the same time. Now no doubt you would have no problem standing next to the box that contained the radioactive nucleus and the cat (as well as the other apparatus designed to make this all work). After one hour you could have a look, collapse the respective wave-functions, and either find a poofed nucleus and a dead cat or an un-poofed nucleus and an alive cat. No problem (apart from the poor puss if she's now deceased).
Now substitute the cat with a thermonuclear bomb. If you seriously have faith in the BOTH this AND that state of affairs, then you must seriously believe that a thermonuclear bomb can be both exploded and not exploded at the same time. You would be very comfortable standing next to the box that contained the radioactive nucleus and the thermonuclear bomb (as well as the other apparatus designed to make this all work). Of course you might not be quite so comfortable lifting the lid on the box after the one hour had expired to check on the bomb's actual status, but you could arrange for a robot as a stand-in observer after that one hour had expired. The point is, you would be 100% comfortable standing next to that box for the duration of that one hour, absolutely confident that you'd be safe, since the bomb's wave-function was intact. Since the wave-function hasn't collapsed, because you haven't peeked, you are perfectly safe. This is indeed a case of what you don't know can't hurt you.
Even so, hands up all of you who would volunteer to stand next to that box for the duration!
SUPERPOSITION-OF-STATE REVISITED
I take it that you would be perfectly willing to stand next to Schrodinger's Box that contained John's thermonuclear bomb instead of Schrodinger's Cat. You should be perfectly safe as long as you didn't peek and collapse the relevant wave-function. Would you be willing to put your life on the line over the reality of superposition-of-state?