why can't the spirtual experience explained from logic
I'll try to guess three analogies.
One is that experience can be explained, but that hearing an explanation isn't the same as experiencing. For example if I go outside then I see (and thus I experience) a lot of things there. I could describe those to you but that's not the same as your seeing (experiencing) them yourself.
Secondly, experience has a partly-emotional component or basis. For example, take a baby and separate it from its mother and father, and it starts to cry. You might "explain" to the baby that there's no need to cry and that the world is benevolent, but the baby cannot learn from your explanation, and can only learn from its own experience. Something similar (i.e. you'll find that your explanation is not effective) might happen if you try to explain something to a dumb animal, to somebody with a psychiatric disability, to somebody who is too busy or has too many preconceptions to listen to you.
Thirdly the mind is a sense-organ for perceiving ideas, in the same way that the eye is a sense-organ for perceiving sights. If the eye is cloudy or troubled then you cannot see properly (or cannot see as clearly as somebody else can). Similarly if the mind is cloudy or troubled then you cannot understand as clearly.
And also, if past, future and present are just illusion than why do we feel it?
I think that when non-Buddhists read about Buddhism they may get the impression that Buddhism teaches that "the world is an illusion" or something like that.
Actually I don't see the word "illusion" used much when I read about Buddhism. Instead I read the word "delusion", which means something which I think is related to "ignorance".
So, if it's true that "past, future and present are just illusion", I'm tempted to assume that's an inaccurate translation of a statement such as "we have ignorant, unwise, unskillful knowledge about and attitudes towards past, future and present".
One of Buddhism's attempts to explain "why do we feel" is the theory of the Twelve Nidānas.
What are similaritys between Schrodingers cat theory and multiverse accordig to spirtual path?
In my own mind I would categorize such thinking as papañca -- i.e. trying to think or talk about a "multiverse" reduces one's ability to see reality-as-it-is.
More specifically "Schrodinger's cat" may have some limited applicability as a theory when talking about quantum mechanics, but it's not appropriate when talking about macroscopic objects. Maybe it's like saying "people are conscious, therefore stars and atoms are conscious too", i.e. untrue/useless.
My impression is that the theories of physics says nothing about morality (good and not-good), about subjective experience (suffering and not-suffering), about recommended behaviour (wise and unwise).
I have heard that conciousness pops up like an electron
I think that consciousness is conditioned by sense-impressions. For example if you see a bull charging at you then you're conscious of that; if you hear music then you're conscious of that; if you step on something sharp then you're conscious of that; but these are all moments of consciousness.