Everything we think we know is a figment of our imagination.

[Kyle Turner]

My theory is that us people as a whole control each others life by united thoughts. What I mean is that a celebrity is a celebrity because everyone thought of them being a celebrity before them being a celebrity and the same goes for any subject. Not to be offensive but this leads me to "prayer" and miracles. Not that those are bad things, but the theory is that the majority of people praying and thinking about someone to get better or for something to happen and it does. But then not all the time does it work like that as if the thoughts were really just a suggestion to the "creators" of our life to change the way something happens like we want.

[Harbal]

What I mean is that a celebrity is a celebrity because everyone thought of them being a celebrity before them being a celebrity and the same goes for any subject.

Does that mean that a nonentity that no one's ever heard of is a nonentity because everyone thought of them as being a nonentity before they became a nonentity?

[Neopolitan]

I suppose the research that shows that prayer doesn't work is also a figment of your imagination?

[Sy Borg]

My theory is that us people as a whole control each others life by united thoughts. What I mean is that a celebrity is a celebrity because everyone thought of them being a celebrity before them being a celebrity and the same goes for any subject.

I'll skip the mythology but this passage is interesting. People certainly do control each other via united thoughts. The group controls the individual. Perhaps one day we will sacrifice our control and individuality entirely as did the mitochondria? Perhaps we are already like mitochondria as we provide power to the "cell" of society in which we operate, surrounded and constricted?

Re: celebrities. Experiments have found that retrocausality does exist at atomic scales. At those scales at least, not only does the past push the present, but the the future pulls at it. If you think of society as a network, then imagine the travel through that network, brain-to-brain, starting with the celebrity's family and friends and spreading outward. There would be jumps through the internet and new local concentrations of awareness would appear.

So, what you can have with non-manufactures celebrities is an undercurrent of awareness building and then it hits a threshold where mainstream media takes notice and seemingly exponentially accelerates the process.

[Jklint]

What I mean is that a celebrity is a celebrity because everyone thought of them being a celebrity before them being a celebrity and the same goes for any subject.

Does that mean that a nonentity that no one's ever heard of is a nonentity because everyone thought of them as being a nonentity before they became a nonentity?

Great question easily resolved. An even number of nonentities create an entity. An odd number means you have to work your way up to one divisible by two without remainder.

[Harbal]

Great question easily resolved. An even number of nonentities create an entity. An odd number means you have to work your way up to one divisible by two without remainder.

Is that the best answer you can come up with for such a great question?

[Jklint]

Great question easily resolved. An even number of nonentities create an entity. An odd number means you have to work your way up to one divisible by two without remainder.

Is that the best answer you can come up with for such a great question?

Sorry! Best I can do! Everyone here knows that I'm a philosophic non-entity who is forever trying to cancel out the remainders.

[Misty]

My theory is that us people as a whole control each others life by united thoughts. What I mean is that a celebrity is a celebrity because everyone thought of them being a celebrity before them being a celebrity and the same goes for any subject. Not to be offensive but this leads me to "prayer" and miracles. Not that those are bad things, but the theory is that the majority of people praying and thinking about someone to get better or for something to happen and it does. But then not all the time does it work like that as if the thoughts were really just a suggestion to the "creators" of our life to change the way something happens like we want.

Does this cancel out how "one" can make a difference?

-- Updated Sun May 24, 2015 3:55 pm to add the following --

"Everything we think we know is a figment of our imagination."

To know and think is a function of the mind, a figment of ones imagination is something imagined or created by ones mind, so it is false that "everything we think we know is a figment of the imagination.

[Cogito ergo sum]

My theory is that us people as a whole control each others life by united thoughts. What I mean is that a celebrity is a celebrity because everyone thought of them being a celebrity before them being a celebrity and the same goes for any subject. Not to be offensive but this leads me to "prayer" and miracles. Not that those are bad things, but the theory is that the majority of people praying and thinking about someone to get better or for something to happen and it does. But then not all the time does it work like that as if the thoughts were really just a suggestion to the "creators" of our life to change the way something happens like we want.

This isn't really your theory and is a long standing idea brought up in philosophy. Obviously a celebrity is only that because a group of people claim them to be. The same can be said with power and with morals and ethics and any notion that is not a physical object that propagates itself in time, space and causality. The person who is a "celebrity" projects themselves in time, space and causality but what a " celebrity" is, the concept of "celebrity" is clearly a construct of our minds. But to go back to your view on prayers and miracles is one that Richard Feynman would fiddle with. Apparently he would go up to people and say, "you will never guess what just happened to me!" And when they asked "what?" He would say, "absolutely nothing!" This may seem trivial but what he was trying to portray is that we create all sorts of meanings to things that happen in our lives, for example. I have a dream that my friend broke his leg and when I call him he says he sprained his ankle. What a coincidence! There is so much meaning in the world! But what about all the other meaningless dreams we have and unanswered prayers we pray? Those are always left unattended while we bask in the glory of probability. We give meaning to things to give meaning to ourselves. This is basic critical thinking, the only people who would refute this idea are theologians or insane people.

[Neopolitan]

I do like your last sentence. Did you manage to keep a straight face when you wrote it? I guess it doesn't matter really since it's six of one or half a dozen of another.