Thinking about how to conceptualize the opposite of particles colliding (because I think that is likely a better description of quantum mechanics than particle-waves.)
Ontologically, a particle can be thought of as a foreground-background juxtaposition in which the foregrounded presence is a tangible point, shape, or volume, and the background is a tangible absence of the same. The particle is an obstruction within a void.
Once we factor in the hypothesis that sense is primary, the obstruction within a void becomes flipped and would instead be something like an instruction within a receptivity to instruction. It’s a blip within some ranged modality of detection, such as visual or tactile detection. Different modalities have different ranges, not only by distance and scale, but quality. You can’t smell velocity or hear momentum.
Instructions in this sense should not be confused or conflated with computation, in which a command is issued in isolation and executed blindly. Here we are starting with a totality which is receptivity itself – not isolation, but consolation. Our instruments, when placed within the expected paths may vibrate in synchrony, so we infer a wave. They may respond with a change in momentum or angle, so we infer a collision of particle. At this level of materiality however, the particle or wave may not have yet been invented. This would explain why we see the strangeness of entanglement and uncertainty. The qualities of matter are still disembodied, mere aromas of locality and stability.
It’s not that these infinitesimally scaled qualia are non-local, rather they are a-local. A primordial oscillation between hankering for locality, and release of that intention into public thermodynamic irreversibility. The private intention is a sequence which plays out as a public unintentional consequence.