dorsal/arxiv
View SchemaDiscussion: Are There Material Objects in Bohm's Theory
| Authors | Michael Dickson |
|---|---|
| Categories | |
| ArXiv ID | quant-ph/0003102 |
| URL | https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0003102 |
Abstract
Bedard has argued that the 'minimalist' interpretation of Bohm's theory "do[es] not make sense", essentially because one cannot account for bonding properties in terms of particles cofigurations alone. I argue that while this point is correct, the minimalist interpretation never sought to provide such an explanation (nor is it incumbant upon this interpretation to do so).
{
"annotation_id": "0a2d0e97-d1e8-465b-9655-7534e63714ea",
"date_created": "2026-03-02T18:01:38.861000Z",
"date_modified": "2026-03-02T18:01:38.861000Z",
"file_hash": "244ead316ad27ee4504ce5ae2ba2b59c867ee45ec27c27c4c3005a509267bc45",
"private": false,
"record": {
"abstract": "Bedard has argued that the \u0027minimalist\u0027 interpretation of Bohm\u0027s theory\n\"do[es] not make sense\", essentially because one cannot account for bonding\nproperties in terms of particles cofigurations alone. I argue that while this\npoint is correct, the minimalist interpretation never sought to provide such an\nexplanation (nor is it incumbant upon this interpretation to do so).",
"arxiv_id": "quant-ph/0003102",
"authors": [
"Michael Dickson"
],
"categories": [
"quant-ph"
],
"title": "Discussion: Are There Material Objects in Bohm\u0027s Theory",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0003102"
},
"schema_id": "dorsal/arxiv",
"source": {
"execution_id": "9560eb17-532f-43b9-95cb-73308a2aa805",
"id": "arXiv Dataset IDs",
"type": "Model",
"variant": "snapshot-2026-03-01",
"version": "0.1.0"
},
"user_id": 1000002
}