> Are you perhaps confusing Born with Bohm? Sorry for my misunderstanding. I thought you were using "Bohmian" to refer to the standard interpretation. (I'd f

> Are you perhaps confusing Born with Bohm? Sorry for my misunderstanding. I thought you were using "Bohmian" to refer to the standard interpretation. (I'd forgotten about that reference in the "Motivation" section of the wikipedia article.) I wasn't referring to the Bohmian interpretation two comments back, I was referring more to the kind of hidden variable Einstein had in mind. (I realize it would have to be non-local.) > All that matters is that, e.g., when one of them is > very close to 1 and the others very close to 0 That's just begging the question. The "nearly-1 probability" comes from the assumption that the initial state in the algorithm is a superposition over a large number of classical states. > what you are rejecting is not any particular > interpretation, but quantum mechanics itself as a > description of what the universe does. No, I accept that the probabilities which come out of the QM formalism accurately describe the frequencies observed in QM systems in the aggregate over many observations. I don't accept that those probabilities tell the whole story in one particular instance.