///Actually Josep, what I said was "Quantum physics hasn't proven anything yet",///

Well, you're wrong.

////and it was specifically in direct response to your comment that "Quantum physics has proven experimentally that consciousness collapses the wave function of a wavicle into a particle, into matter."///

Well, you're wrong there too. It HAS been proven. I already mentioned the experiment of Alain Aspect who proved the EPR Paradox really does happen and that it does not violate Special Relativity as Einstein said it would. Ironically, it was Einstein who formulated the paradox to disprove QM and ended up proving it. The same with Schroedinger's cat--it was supposed to disprove the idea of wave functions and ended up proving it. But then EPR and Schroedinger's cat are closely related thought experiments born from the same type of thinking. They were wrong. QM is not only valid, it is more correct than any other theories currently out there. Certainly not all physicists buy the same interpretations and that's good because someone may come up with something better. But for now, the Copenhagen Interpretation fits the data better than any other interpretation. I'll easily grant you that it is not likely a complete science. I would be disappointed if it was but it works well enough for now.


///I regard that as an unproven but nonetheless interesting theory which, as such, provides no real evidence for the survival of consciousness after death, let alone proof, as you have claimed.////

That's because you let Lox throw you off saying my argument was based on QM and I tried to make clear that it was not. It has nothing to do with QM. Some of the side arguments such as universal consciousness have a case with QM which lends credence to my argument but the argument itself is COMPLETELY STAND-ALONE It is purely logical and requires nothing else to make its case.

///As I understand it, QM doesn't set out to prove things, but to attempt to explain them. It has a long way to go before it is established and agreed upon even amongst its own proponents before it is in any position to actually prove anything independantly. I like to know at least how many legs a horse has before I back it. ///

"Set out to prove things" is a vague phrase. QM didn't set out to prove that classical physics was useless at the subatomic realm because they already knew that such was the case which is why QM came into being at all. The stuff about wave functions and theories championed by Gell-Mann, Bohm, Yukawa, Bell, Scroedinger, Bohr, Heisenberg, Dirac, Pauli, Sarfatti, Feynmann and others arose long after Planck first proposed the existence of quanta. No one saw any of that coming. That's just standard science. Newton couldn't have foreseen relativity even though both his system and Einstein's are considered classical physics. There were plenty of physicists saying, "I'll stick with Newton. If people expect me to believe identical twins age at different rates in different relativistic frames of reference and that time is the fourth dimension they must be on dangerous drugs."