light

Scientists disagree about the nature of light.
The current definition prevailing in academe seems to embody contradictions in terms.
Light is considered to be a particle.
At the same time light is considered to be a wave.
Light is also considered to behave differently depending on whether anyone is looking at it or not.
These logical contradictions imply to some that light has not been correctly defined or conceived of at all.
Or that we're not even close.
Definitional analysis of light remains elusive.
Why?
When we experience light, we may be experiencing several things at once, not one thing with mutually contradictory properties.
Some propositions:

1. Light occurs when some sort of an energy, emanates, radiates, or is displaced. The displacement occurs in what may be likenable to a wave form as to its affects on a medium.
2. For light to occur the wave form must manifest in a medium, specifically not empty space but in fact that electro magnetic medium which is the equilibrium at a given moment of those background forces that are detectable in our environment, ie gravity, the weak nuclear force, the strong nuclear force, and electro magnetism. The combination of these, their moment to moment equilibrium as it were, is itself a medium without which light does not exist. The response of this medium to light energy passing through it, is observable as a wave form but is also what causes light to be attended by characteristics of a particle.
3. For light as we observe it to happen a final element must be present. There is no light as we observe it without the medium of consciousness experienced through what we call eye sight. The observer affects the nature of the reality of the thing observed. If no one is looking at it, light is something else.

So:
Light may not be a wave.
What we're calling Light may be three things or more at once.
What looks like a wave form may be the effect of light "energy" (the emanation or radiation or displacement of light) through an electro magnetic medium whose existence as a medium is itself admittedly disputed.
The wave form effect on the medium in which it manifests may be what gives light the apparently paradoxical qualities of particle motion which accompany the supposed wave wherever it is perceived.

Possible steps towards corollaries:
Any point in the universe may provide a limitless variety of measurements in relation to every other point in the universe.
This limitless capacity for alternative measurements has relevance for the postulated affect of an observer on a thing observed.
Different measurements do not necessarily imply that anything meaningful has been measured.
The limitless variety of measurements from a single point to every other point in the universe has led to erroneous postulations of other worlds, aka the Landscape, aka the multiverse, aka the megaverse.
These universes are appealing for atheists as they are now de rigeur in efforts to make the mathematics of Darwinian evolution appear to add up.
The multiverse is a rational dysfunction.
There are no other universes.
Just this one.
With an infinity of measurements and attendant rational dysfunctions possible to go along with it.