logical category accommodates it best? Gao is (legitimately) concerned with the first set of questions, but he seems to get the two issues somewhat confused when he attacks the ‘nomological interpretation’ of the wave function (something I have worked on myself) as if it were a competitor to his ψ-ontic view. That this is somewhat off the mark is, I think, evident from the fact that a nomological interpretation could be applied to Gao’s own proposal: if the primary role of the wave function is to describe or determine the RDM of particles, one might well be tempted to regard it as part of the physical law. Coming to an end (and back to the RDM idea), I believe that in order to appreciate what the book does and does not accomplish, it is important to realise that the most successful and ontologically clear formulations of quantum mechanics are not ‘interpretations’; they are precise physical theories that can be studied and analysed and compared with empirical data. The RDM proposal, as it stands, is more an interpretation in the literal sense: a story that can be told about quantum mechanics, but one that is not actually dictated by, or reflected in, the mathematics. To turn the story into a full-fledged theory, one would have to write down the stochastic process, i.e. the actual law, describing the RDM of particles and analyse it for consistency and empirical accuracy. This is probably not a philosopher’s job. But my point is that the proposal developed in the book is—maybe to a larger extent than the author realises—the sketch of a project. And your level of motivation to engage in this project is bound to depend, among other things, on your level of (dis)satisfaction with the wellworked-out options that are already on the table. In conclusion, if one reads The Meaning of the Wave Function expecting a textbook or a comprehensive monograph on the metaphysics of the wave function, there are certainly things to criticise. But if you take the book more in the spirit of the subtitle, as a search for the ontology of quantum mechanics, there is also a lot to like and learn and engage with. After all, the nice thing about a search is that it can take you to interesting places along the way, even if it does not ultimately reach the goal you were hoping for.

中文翻译：

---

经济体制：将经济学留给专家的危险

逻辑类别最适合它？高（正当地）关心第一组问题，但是当他攻击波动函数的“经济学解释”（我自己研究过的东西）时，似乎使这两个问题有些困惑，好像它是他的论观点。我认为这是不合时宜的，这一事实从以下事实可以明显看出：可以用经济学上的解释来解释高的提议：如果波动函数的主要作用是描述或确定粒子的RDM，那么很可能是试图将其视为物理定律的一部分。最后（回到RDM理念），我相信为了欣赏本书的成就和成就，重要的是要认识到，量子力学最成功且在本体论上最清晰的表述不是“解释”；它们是可以研究，分析并与经验数据进行比较的精确物理理论。就目前而言，RDM提案更像是一种字面意义上的解释：一个可以讲述量子力学的故事，但实际上并非由数学所决定或反映。为了将故事变成一个成熟的理论，必须写下随机过程，即实际定律，描述粒子的RDM并分析其一致性和经验准确性。这可能不是哲学家的工作。但我的观点是，书中提出的建议（可能比作者意识到的要更大）是项目的草图。您参与该项目的动机水平除其他因素外，还取决于您对已经摆在桌面上的精心设计的方案的（不满意）水平。总而言之，如果读一读《波动函数的含义》，期望得到一本关于波动函数的形而上学的教科书或一本综合性的专着，那么肯定会有一些批评。但是，如果您本着字幕的精神去看这本书，作为寻找量子力学的本体，那么还有很多东西值得喜欢，学习和参与。毕竟，搜索的好处是，即使搜索最终没有达到您希望的目标，它也可以带您到达有趣的地方。您对表格中已经精心设计的选项感到（不满意）。总而言之，如果读一读《波动函数的含义》，期望得到一本关于波动函数的形而上学的教科书或一本综合性的专着，那肯定有一些批评的地方。但是，如果您本着字幕的精神去看这本书，作为寻找量子力学的本体，那么还有很多东西值得喜欢，学习和参与。毕竟，搜索的好处是，即使搜索最终没有达到您希望的目标，它也可以带您到达有趣的地方。您对表格中已经精心设计的选项感到（不满意）。总而言之，如果读一读《波动函数的含义》，期望得到一本关于波动函数的形而上学的教科书或一本综合性的专着，那肯定有一些批评的地方。但是，如果您本着字幕的精神去看这本书，作为寻找量子力学的本体，那么还有很多东西值得喜欢，学习和参与。毕竟，搜索的好处是，即使搜索最终没有达到您希望的目标，它也可以带您到达有趣的地方。但是，如果您本着字幕的精神去看这本书，作为寻找量子力学的本体，那么还有很多东西值得喜欢，学习和参与。毕竟，搜索的好处是，即使搜索最终没有达到您希望的目标，它也可以带您到达有趣的地方。但是，如果您本着字幕的精神去看这本书，作为寻找量子力学的本体，那么还有很多东西值得喜欢，学习和参与。毕竟，搜索的好处是，即使搜索最终没有达到您希望的目标，它也可以带您到达有趣的地方。