We can empirically conclude that particles have properties of both particles and waves, although waves do not necessarily have properties of particles.
So, what does this empirical fact mean? It obviously can’t mean that particles are waves. since waves aren’t necessarily particles, but just as obviously can’t mean that particles aren’t waves, since particles obviously have the properties of waves. So, what does it mean? Does it mean that particles are both waves and particles or that particles are neither waves or particles? The former did we exclude above by the fact that waves aren’t necessarily particles, and the latter is contradictory by stating that particles aren’t particles. The meaning of this empirical fact is thus impossible to straighten out.
Instead, this fact is the paradox we call Russell’s paradox. It is the middle of conceptualization, which we also call Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. It is thus both a paradox and an uncertainty principle. It is a paradox in that it rotates around an uncertain middle and an uncertainty principle in that it is a paradox. This middle can’t thus exist by being inconsistent, but does none-the-less exist per definition.
So, how do we solve this difficult equation? Well, the solution is that this middle is an empty space. It does exist as a space, but not as a thing. To me, this middle appears as the fundamental emptiness that drives the world. It is the black hole that realists, like cladists and particle physicists, do all they can to deny, but which we sooner or later have to acknowledge in order to avoid the recurrent battles between different kinds of realists. Not until we can acknowledge this empty middle can we thus come to speaking terms about how we shall handle reality. Until then, we’re destined to battle each other in different searches for this empty middle.