{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0192822710230316, 'fraction_numerical': 0.002678093197643278, 'mean_word_length': 5.1245901639344265, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Jeffrey Bub The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, Reidel (Boston, 1974)

The virtues of Jeffrey Bub's book are evident. It contains clear, accurate and unpretentious accounts of the formalism of the quantum theory, of the results of more than thirty years of mathematical investigations of the theory, and of the relations between the theory's algebraic structures and its statistical predictions. In addition, some difficult technical questions are handled in original and plausible ways. Readers with more physics or mathematics than philosophy will find a detailed presentation of propositional logic; readers innocent of physics will find (provided they can follow some mathematics) an accessible account of the structure of the quantum theory. For these reasons alone the book will undoubtedly and deservedly be read and used. If the deficiencies of the book are less obvious, they are, regrettably, no less real. While the development of the technical work on the quantum theory always promises a philosophical point, none emerges, and the book sails on as if the quantum conundrums that have beset philosophers and physicists alike in recent years were ports of call unworthy of much notice. In short, I think Bub misses the point. It is not that he has written a book of technical exposition and nothing more, but rather that from the technical exposition solutions of all fundamental philosophical queries about quantum mechanics are supposed to emerge, and they don't. Consider why it is that it is hard to say what is going on in the world described by quantum mechanics. Certainly it is a fundamental principle of scientific reasoning that an hypothesis which has been confirmed by innumerable tests, and never disconfirmed, ought tentatively to be accepted provided the tests do not equally support some contradictory hypothesis. Newton1 said it best: