The following seems to be intuitively plausible:
- If an object is wholly located in a region R but is not wholly located in a subregion S, then it is partially located in R−S.
- If an object is partially located in a region R, then it has a part that is wholly located there.
- If the integral of the modulus squared of the normalized wavefunction for a particle over a region R is 1, then the particle is wholly located in the closure of R.
- If the integral of the modulus squared of the normalized wavefunction for a particle over a region R is strictly less than one, then the particle is not wholly located in the interior of R.
Given that scenarios like the Patty one are physically possible, we need to reject one of (1)-(4). I think (3) is integral to quantum mechanics, and (1) seems central to the concept of partial location. That leaves a choice between (2) and (4).
If we insist on (2) but drop (4), then we can actually generalize the argument to conclude that there is a point at which Patty is wholly located. Either there is exactly one such point--and that's the Bohmian interpretation--or else Patty is wholly multilocated, and probably the best reading of that scenario is that Patty is wholly multilocated at least throughout the interior of any region where the modulus squared of the normalized wavefunction has integral one.
So, all in all, we have three options:
- massive multilocation
- partial location without whole location of parts (denial of (2)).
I myself have independent motivations for embracing the denial of (2): I believe in extended simples.