By definition, a wave function does not describe a particle's state exactly, we can only know that information when we make measurements and thus collapse the wave function.
This gives us a lot of interesting counter-intuitive facts such as the Shrödinger's cat being 50% dead and alive at the same time until we open the box to measure, or that a particle that's expected to be found here when measured could, with extremely little chance, be found on the Moon instead.
The way I see it, quantum mechanics is just a model that tries to move humanity forward in understanding the Universe. In other words, given the Uncertainty Principle limiting our ability to measure the small stuff, quantum mechanics tries to circumvent that limitation. But in doing so we start to see a lot of absolutely counter-intuitive but most importantly unreasonable conclusions with quantum mechanics, such as the undead cat, the fact that we don't experience a wave function on a macroscopic level, etc. (note when I say "unreasonable" I mean the opposite to conclusions that are counter-intuitive but absolutely understandable with reason like time relativity, which also happens to be proved).
I like to think that there is a specific state for the Universe at all times, and I believe the wave function does not forbid that but rather is a limited approach to understanding the Universe given the limitations imposed by the Uncertainty Principle.
My question is: could it be that reality actually has a specific state but we simply cannot measure it and we rely on less than perfect models to move forward in our understanding of the Universe? In other words, could it be that the absurd conclusions of the undead cat and the particle on the Moon are actually impossible but quantum mechanics fail to set limits on that?