  We compare and contrast two distinct approaches to understanding the Born
rule in de Broglie-Bohm pilot-wave theory, one based on dynamical relaxation
over time (advocated by this author and collaborators) and the other based on
typicality of initial conditions (advocated by the 'Bohmian mechanics' school).
It is argued that the latter approach is inherently circular and physically
misguided. The typicality approach has engendered a deep-seated confusion
between contingent and law-like features, leading to misleading claims not only
about the Born rule but also about the nature of the wave function. By
artificially restricting the theory to equilibrium, the typicality approach has
led to further misunderstandings concerning the status of the uncertainty
principle, the role of quantum measurement theory, and the kinematics of the
theory (including the status of Galilean and Lorentz invariance). The
restriction to equilibrium has also made an erroneously-constructed stochastic
model of particle creation appear more plausible than it actually is. To avoid
needless controversy, we advocate a modest 'empirical approach' to the
foundations of statistical mechanics. We argue that the existence or otherwise
of quantum nonequilibrium in our world is an empirical question to be settled
by experiment.
