[naasking]

> While the Copenhagen interpretation can skirt the issue completely, Bohm's must wrangle with the implications of both relativity and non-locality and no one has been completely successful as such.

Some might consider that a feature. John Bell of Bell's theorem thought QM's non-locality was the most important unresolved issue, so placing it front and center where it couldn't be ignored was a great idea. Interpretations like Copenhagen simply let you paper over the problems which will inevitably just arise elsewhere.

Finally, I think there's been some promising work in deriving covariant Bohmian mechanics. For instance, a preferred foliation of spacetime can be derived from the wave function itself [1], which means a preferred reference frame is actually a part of every interpretation of QM. This is the kind of result that probably would have never been found without research into Bohmian mechanics.

> Also, if it were the leading view, I don't think discussions of a simulated universe would be as popular.

I don't see why. Simulated reality is a purely logical argument [2].

[1] https://arxiv.org/abs/1307.1714

[2] http://www.simulation-argument.com/

[Jizzle]

You're right that simulation arguments generally don't rely on QM interpretations. I mention it as potentially detracting from simulation because a common argument includes the need for computational shortcuts. QM as it is popularized now simply fits the shortcut narrative better than it would under the Bohmian approach.