Scott Aaranson:
"OK, but are the quantum states “ontic” (really out in the world), or “epistemic” (only in our heads)?" ... "Bad dichotomy."
Daniel Harlow #16:
"silliness of the ontic/epistemic discussion"
Mateus Araújo #50:
"The crucial distinction between ontic versus epistemic entities is that the latter don’t have to respect the laws of physics."
"If quantum states are epistemic, the unphysical collapse is not a problem. If they are ontic, well, we can’t have them collapsing, can we?"
Scott #88:
"There’s the state that I ascribe to the system I’m measuring, which does collapse when I measure it (more epistemic), and then there’s the state that I’d hypothetically ascribe to the entire universe including myself, which never collapses (more ontic)"
Mateus Araújo #97: "Both of your examples are trivially ontic states, the state of the system in your branch of the wavefunction, and the state of the whole wavefunction." "... you can’t even understand what people mean when they say they’re epistemic."
Scott #108: ?
Mateus Araújo #124: ?
Scott #129: no-go theorems => epistemicists should give up
Mateus Araújo #138: Agrees with #129 but lists some epistemicists (including Bohmians).
Scott #187: Are Bohmians epistemicists?
Mateus Araújo #199: "I think calling them (Bohmians) epistemicists is fair, though perhaps an oversimplification."