>>13639123The languages we’ve developed as a species only provide approximations of reality, and only at length/time/energy/etc scales that are relevant to our everyday life.
The words “wave” and “particle” are macroscopic in their applicability and there’s absolutely no reason why the world at a totally different length/time/energy/etc scale should conform to our language. When we say things like “light is both a wave and a particle”, we are trying our best to assign words to phenomenon beyond the applicability of our coarse language.
Personally, I find it best to just think of matter as being its own thing that, under certain conditions, can exhibit properties that are similar to “waves” and “particles” in a macroscopic sense, but are not wholly either because, as previously stated, our language is insufficient to describe the quantum world.
