Two differing approaches to quantum-theoretic thought based on the same foundation:
Robert Anton Wilson’s wording: The photon behaves as a wave (particle) when constrained by certain instruments.
Now, committing the faux pas of disregarding e-prime grammar, let's just go with the following:
Instrument A measures field X and shows that it is a particle (collapsed)
Instrument B measures field X and shows that it is a wave (phaselock)
What can be said, then, of field X (setting aside for now the paradigmatic language of e-prime)? 1) Its empirical behavior or modality is determined by instrumental constraints. 2) If 1) is true, then the paradox is the result of instrumental constraints, and 3) thus, the dual tension of particle-wave is not necessarily intrinsic to the field X.
What if we were to argue, in the J. von Neumann sense, that field X does not stop at Instruments A and B, but rather, envelops them in such a way that Instruments A and B are both aspects, extensions of X? At what phase does field X cease from being probabilistic, in such a way that an instrument(s) becomes an objective, separate, independent entity from that field? According to Uncertainty, the instrument(s) is inevitably a parameter of measurement, and furthermore, field X does not stop at enveloping the instruments either, but rather, field X and the observer are intimately intertwined---i.e., they are interdependent. They are one and the same.
Interestingly enough, the terminus of the two (almost mutually exclusive) paths of the old Copenhagen school and e-prime is the same, viz, the observer. Substantially in both cases ontological primacy belongs to the observer as its existence in all instances must precede, of modal necessity, a priori, all determinate actions that collapse the wave function.