I had trouble understanding this and had brought it up before but I thought I'd start a new thread on it, in case anyone has any further insights. In the original Leifer summary discussing the implications of PBR theorem on the various QM interpretations, Leifer argued that realists should become ψ-ontologists. He writes: Can the quantum state be interpreted statistically? Can the quantum state be interpreted statistically? | Matt LeiferMatt Leifer But this is what is confusing me. Harrigan and Spekken, whose definitions of ψ-ontic and ψ-epistemic are used in the PBR theorem briefly discuss the ontic nature of the different Bohmian interpretations and write: Einstein, incompleteness, and the epistemic view of quantum states 403 Forbidden Supporting this non-ontic reading for the nature of the minimalist Bohmian interpretation, Belousek writes: Non‐separability, non‐supervenience, and quantum ontology Non-separability, Non-supervenience, and Quantum Ontology | Darrin Snyder Belousek - Academia.edu Assuming that the PBR theorem is accurate, does this imply that the Durr et al. minimalist Bohmian interpretation is ruled out?