This answer expands on the answer given by anna v
It is easy to become accustomed to a pattern of physics providing explanation after explanation.
For example, how is it that a gas has elastic properties under compression? If you compress it to half the volume, the pressure pretty much doubles. It's surprisingly similar to a spring, yet a gas isn't a spring, surely?
Physics offers a wonderful explanation: the molecules of the gas are moving fast, and collisions of molecules are perfectly elastic. The pressure of a gas against the walls of the vessel arises from elastic collisions of the molecules with the walls. If you half the volume the number of collisions pretty much doubles, hence the change of pressure.
What the physics did there: it moved the description of physics taking place to a deeper level. As it happens the physics on this deeper level (fast moving, elastically colliding molecules) is very readily visualized in things we know in the macroscopic world. We can readily visualize a population of bouncing balls.
In this particular case we are fortunate: the description at a deeper level consists of something that has a counterpart in physics we can see happening with our own eyes.
So yeah, it's natural to hope that a theory at quantum level can describe the physics taking place in terms of things we can visualize: particles, and waves. Well, in the case of quantum mechanics it turns out that what is expressed by the equations has no counterpart in the macroscopic world.
We make do with concepts we can visualize; particles and waves. In that sense the duality is introduced by the human thinking process; it's not inherent in the physics.
On more remark, again expanding on the anwser by anna v:
What is not in physics is exhaustive explanation
When a new theory replaces an existing theory the description of the physics taking place moves to a deeper level.
When newtonian mechanics was established it looked for more than 300 years that no deeper level existed. Then, in the course of development of relativistic physics, theory of motion moved to a yet deeper level. So we learned not to expect that we are at the most fundamental level. A deeper level of description may be possible, we don't know.
Physics is not in the business of looking for exhaustive explanation. For the duration of working at a particular level of description (which can last hundreds of years) the assumptions necessary for that level of description are taken as given.
Newton assumed the existence of a gravitational force, acting over large distance, to explain the fact that the planets are orbiting the Sun. Newton's contemporaries were more demanding. For example, Descartes offered a hypothesis of vortices in space, with those vortices exerting an inward push on the planets. Descartes was determined to restrict himself to hypotheses with understandable elements only. He could visualize vortices, thus he ended up with vortices.
In retrospect we see that Descartes was just bogging himself down. Newton was more successfull because he operated on a need-to-assume basis.
Newton could not explain gravity itself, but he saw the strong explanatory strength it offered, and he moved ahead.