if you decline to condemn them to death, how are they different from other “residents” in the distant future?
Probably because some are more real and others are less so.
Can you explain in more detail what you mean by this?
Has it been demonstrated to be safe over a long period of time?
How can somebody (without access to a lab) practically implement that technique?
I suppose I would not be failing an empirical test, but I would be going against the well established law of conservation of mass and energy, and we can conclude I am wrong with >99% certainty.
To prevent us from getting too hooked on the analogy and back to my original question, if there is a theory (Bohm) that cannot pass or fail an experimental test but does go against a well established principle (locality), why should we give it a second glance? (Again, not a rhetorical question.)
The analogy is hand-waving. If the spacecraft has gone over the cosmological horizon, how did you ever conclude that it exists in the first place? Such a conclusion would only be possible if you observed the spacecraft before it crossed over. In other words, it passed an experimental test.
That didn't really answer the question. Can you give a context-specific answer?
If interpretations cannot pass or fail an experimental test, what purpose do they serve?
(Not a rhetorical question; genuinely curious.)
And yes, Bohm is non-local, which you could say is a problem... or you could say it explains why quantum mechanics is different from classical mechanics.
I̶'̶m̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶ ̶s̶a̶y̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶B̶o̶h̶m̶ ̶i̶n̶t̶e̶r̶p̶r̶e̶t̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶w̶r̶o̶n̶g̶ ̶(̶b̶e̶c̶a̶u̶s̶e̶ ̶I̶'̶m̶ ̶t̶o̶o̶ ̶i̶n̶e̶x̶p̶e̶r̶i̶e̶n̶c̶e̶d̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶f̶i̶e̶l̶d̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶s̶a̶y̶)̶,̶ ̶b̶u̶t̶ I do not see how the above statement can be used to privilege Bohm over any other theory. If anything, shouldn't its non-locality lower our priors on its correctness?
Those two concepts have some overlap. Why should we use our energy trying to accomplish something that many have failed? Do we have good reason to discard the validity of their efforts? Are there good reasons to think our particular abilities are better suited to the task? Are we going to make some incremental progress that others can build on?
I would somewhat agree with this if the phrase "making mistakes" was removed. People generally have poor reasoning skills and make non-optimal choices >99% of the time. (Yes, I am including myself and you, the reader, in this generalization.)
I think this post can be modified, without much effort, to defend any pseudo-cult, or even a cheesy movie.