I take things from somewhat of an engineering POV, although not
   schooled for it. So there are times it's a useful _analogy_ to
   see them as physical waves and times, and as physical particles
   at times. It's a concession to cognitive limitations - that is:
   what can I analogize to. It can be be useful to see it as a
   spinning flock of birds that change their mind at times. Or a
   standing wave. (a wave that's "hard" because of its acceleration
   speed unto itself). Or see the multi-ness: the interconnected
   web. Or as little probability lights blinking on and off. Or
   little switches or interacting magnets with tiny little Wizards
   inside making the decisions. Whatever. Point is: There's a
   number of practical ways of envisioning. Then there's the math.
   When dealing with this, the math is king NOT so much for "woah
   dude, this is our REALITY - it's so unreal man!" but rather it's
   novel ways of doing the maths. _Could_ this be describing our
   "actual reality"? It could be. But that's not what it's dealing
   with. There's a reason why it's call theoretical physics and not
   "DIY quantum state analysis machine kit complete with soldering
   iron and make-it-yourself rail-gun" It's different - a field
   onto its own.