Discussion: Are There Material Objects in Bohm's Theory
arXiv: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).
13pp. A reply to Bedard (1999) Phil. Sci. 66:221