[uoaei]

> he often gets 'eggs' chucked at him for his Pilot Wave interpretation of QM

The funniest part of all that is, Bohm's pilot wave theory isn't even wrong. It's one possible interpretation of many, and definitely isn't falsified yet (none of the others are, either), though it does carry some unsettling implications if it happens to be accurate, most notably that it is predicated on determinism, which is probably most of the reason why it's been marginalized. Aside from, of course, the Copenhagen fiasco.

[hilbert42]

The funniest part of all that is, Bohm's pilot wave theory isn't even wrong. It's one possible interpretation of many,...

First, everything I've read and learned about Bohm tells me I would have liked the man had I ever met him - even the well-known portrait photo of him hints at his maverick nature. We need more troublemakers in science and physics to stir up the orthodoxy. :-)

Second, I rather like the Pilot Wave theory despite, as you say, its unsettling implications. It sort of makes sense to my simple mind.

I don't consider myself sufficiently expert to say how much leeway there is in the theory but I'll say this, others such as Many Worlds seem somewhat even more incredulous to my mind (despite Carroll's eager proselytizing the cause), but I'm open enough to be convinced come more evidence.

Re Copenhagen, yeah it's a 'fiasco' even though it works. Had I had sufficient brains and been around at Solvay I'm damned sure I would have had arguments with Bohr. Despite Bell, the EPR Paradox mob were onto something, at least they didn't take 'no' for an answer, similarly so with Bohm.

Intelligent-thinking dissenters are good for physics.

[uoaei]

Many Worlds Interpretation suffers from a more catastrophic and incredibly strong assumption, namely that all of the possible universes are real. That seems far-fetched on its face, though could still in principle be possible I suppose.

Quantum Bayesianism ("QBism") softens the strong claims about reality to merely those about subjectivity, i.e., you cannot know that which cannot be represented by the configuration space of your lightcone. In other words, possible futures are possible only when there is an unbroken causal chain from your present to that future, and you will be ignorant of anything outside of your lightcone. It stresses the uncertainty inherent in a singular perspective of spacetime's unfolding, rather than an uncertainty of some mythical "wavefunction collapse mechanism".

[hilbert42]

Yeah, right. Philosophy was once part of my curriculum and some propositions/arguments in favor of MW would seem more apt therein. Phil. also had a strong formal logic section to it so I consider your other QBism points well put.