[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Because a pathological desire to reduce the number of entities to the minimum possible isnt the be-all-and-end-all of theory selection - the desire to have a coherent theory is also a factor. A theory which explains things in a neat and rational manner is preferable to one which is a philosophical nightmare riddled with conceptual problems. In addition, terms like 'simplest' are vague and difficult to define - people supporting different incompatible theories often claim that theirs is the 'simplest' . It really depends which specific criteria you want to use (is simplicity of mathematics more important than the number of entities postulated for instance? Does being able to explain things in a 'common-sense' manner outweigh having to resort to a more complex, yet equally predictive, theory? I dont think theres any objectively correct answer to these type of questions).

I think the bohm interpretation goes further than that. Even Einstein decried it as unnecessary superstructure. I'd disagree entirely as regards quantum theory being a philosophical nightmare riddled with conceptual problems (or whatever slightly less extreme description you're applying to it). It's a coherent proposition that at the atomic level particles do not have definite positions or velocities.

There are also deeper problems with orthodox QM that alternative interpretations handle in different ways, such as its inability to account for the fact that measurements produce specific values without bolting on ad hoc assumptions, and the important role that it gives to outside observers which is problematic in (eg) cosmology where studying the early universe makes it desirable to have a wavefunction representing the state of the whole universe (ie, where there is no 'outside'). Basically, no one interpretation is entirely perfect, and Ockhams razor alone isnt very useful for choosing between them.

I'm not sure what you mean here. The specific values are concerning wave fronts, not particles.

That is one way of interpreting the experimental data. There are several others, all equally consistent with the evidence. Nothing is being forced on us by nature here; you can have precise velocities and positions in your theory as long as youre willing to accept the consequences (such as bizarre non-locality).

Standard quantum mechanics is non-local anyways dude.