The problem for us in conceptualizing reality is that “reality belongs to the single thing” (as William of Occam rightly expressed it), in that single things are ambiguous in properties between particles and waves, and that their representations in conceptualization are paradoxically contradictory (ie, Russell’s paradox).
In other words, the problem is that only single things can be real, but that they are practically ambiguous and theoretically paradoxically contradictory for conceptualization.
This problem means that reality has to be either ambiguous (ie, the approach called “nominalism”) or paradoxically contradictory (ie, the approach called “realism”) to us. The problem with the latter approach (ie, realism), applied in cladistics and particle physics, is that paradoxes can’t be real, because they are in reality nothing, whereas the former approach (ie, nominalism), applied in traditional empirical science, only has to accept that reality is ambiguous. The problem thus means that we can’t come closer to reality than comprehending it as ambiguous.
Fundamentally, however, the problem is due to that kinds (classes), which conceptualization rests on, don’t (can’t) be real, because kinds of things and kinds of properties are not the same kinds of kinds, but rather orthogonal (ie, diametrically opposed) kinds, because it creates the trade-off between reality and conceptualization which ends in either ambiguity or paradoxical contradiction by excluding a middle.
Conceptualization thus inevitably leads us to either ambiguity or paradoxical contradiction due to its intrinsic orthogonality of kinds (classes), whereof only ambiguity is consistent. It thus forces us to accept that reality is ambiguous if we want to be consistent (ie, avoid self-contradiction).
So, yes, reality does indeed “belong to the single thing”, but unfortunately this single thing is either ambiguous or paradoxically contradictory in conceptualization, whereof only the ambiguity is consistent. We can thus wave farewell to a single truth (which cladists and particle physicists on the contrary “believe in”).