In the scientific interpretation of reality, there are fundamentally particles, waves and fields.
Of these, waves are unambiguous by only displaying properties of waves, whereas particles and fields are ambiguous by displaying properties of both particles and waves. So, what is the relation between particles and fields?
Well, according to particle physics’ “finding” of the so-called Higgs particle, particles and fields are fundamentally one and the same thing, or rather mechanism, wherein fields continuously give rise to particles. The problem with this “finding” (ie, this model) is that it means that this kind of “particle” is not a particle in the traditional sense of a thing, but rather in the sense of a wave, thus meaning either that there are different kinds of particles or that particles equals waves, which they can’t because waves do not display properties of particles. It thus must mean that there are different kinds of particles.
Now, if there indeed are different kinds of particles (as particle physics claim to have “discovered”), then there must also be different kinds of both waves and fields. Indeed, there must be an uncountably infinite number of kinds of both particles, waves and fields, thus leading science into the intrinsic inconsistency of classification (ie, its black hole), which both Linné and mathematics have succeeded to avoid.
The grand question now is thus if scientists will accept the thus claimed “finding” of particle physics and thereby disappear into the intrinsic black hole of classification, or if they shall accept the avoidance of this black hole by Linnean systematics and mathematics. The question is if science will choose suicide by realism or life by nominalism.