However you define war, it is a suite of physical events, photons and other particles doing stuff, and these events are necessarily self compatible. How you feel about these events affecting other events isn't material to any of those events. Even if you never notice them at all they will still occur.

But one could just as well say that war is a sequence of mental events that only lead to the physical events you are talking about.

The question of whether a branch falls from a tree when no one is there to witness it is a philosophical or metaphysical one, to point to something that exists beyond the physical explanatory models in people's minds. War, in my view, is a mental product before it becomes a physical one. The more there is talk of war, the more our attention is drawn there, leading to real conflicts. The compulsion that everyone perceives is to form a pro or con attitude to events. This makes it a mental attitude.

We humans have a so-called seventh sense called sleuthing, for instance. So in 2020, people spoke out against the pandemic policy not because of factual information, but because they smelled something fishy about it. I didn't believe in the millions of deaths from the alleged killer virus because to believe in it would have required millions of deaths first, e.g. what is commonly imagined as a "plague". But this idea never had anything in common with the reality in which I grew up. Throughout my life there has never been a plague, so why should I believe in it?

The power of the mental imagination, which functions both dystopian and utopian, is a driver for hysteria or for enthusiasm.

According to quantum theory, there is definitely no sound in the forest. There is not even a tree that falls over. Only when a person in this forest observes this incident does it become real.
^{just a random comment from the Internet source}

the transition of the geocentrism of the Catholic Church to egocentrism: the world no longer revolves around the earth, but around me. What I can't come to terms with in this statement, however, is that there is still talk of "we" when it comes to the creation of reality. If I create reality myself, then all other people are also created by me, especially since I have no proof that my reality corresponds to the reality of the person next to me. The intersection between my reality and the reality of the other people consists only in a certain number of norms, agreements and definitions. Is it enough to speak of a shared reality?
^{same source}

Positively speaking, I could say that the aeroplane came into being because man could, in principle, imagine flying. Without his idea of flying, there would be no aeroplane. I understand you to say that man can imagine as much as he wants. If his idea does not correspond to the physical conditions and prerequisites, his idea is nothing more than a fantasy.

Well, I agree with that, but at the same time there remains a wonderment about it, in that I am not willing to look at cosmic and earthly events from this materialistic perspective alone.

A common reality always becomes particularly clear when it is about to disappear.

Take the belief in God. Christianity established a common language for this, which individuals did not have to ask how they could get on the same level as someone else's reality, because they could experience that this level already existed through the common language and understanding/interpretation of terms.

In many parts of the world, Christianity is dead or a shadow of itself. A common reality is doubted not because physical events promote such a thing, but because man as a social being must first agree on such a thing.

When spiritual reality falls into umpteen fragments, when the common value base breaks down, the individual's life also falls into ruins because he can no longer be sure that the way he sees (and wills) the world is the way others see (and will) it.

In fact, earthly life consists of 100 per cent news values. The fact that perhaps one per cent of these hundred per cent appear in the media does not change the reality of the 99 per cent of events, but if they are not discussed by anyone, it is like Schrödinger's cat. It can be dead or alive.

What I mean to say is that observation by people has an immense influence on their sense of reality. If no one is there to observe anything, the behaviour of the observed is irrelevant to the human being. Seen in this way, physical laws that take place beyond the human point of view are of cosmic and earthly significance, but have no relevance for the individual if he does not think about them. As long as he is not made aware of it.

To bundle the attention potential of all people on earth and to concentrate it on a singular event, as in the plandemic, thus changes their reality. This creates facts that may not have been there before, i.e. additional physical events are set in motion that appear as a threat or salvation due to their assumed or proven unstoppability.

It will not be possible to juxtapose this mental event with all the factual events in order to obtain a clean result, because in the continuous stream of events, things cannot return to the starting point. Nevertheless, it would be nihilistic to say that one should not try.

When I see myself surrounded by "loud materialists", I try to achieve a balance by arguing spiritistically. If I see myself surrounded by "all spiritualists", I go to the materialistic side. I see this as a balancing act and an attempt to influence what is happening. It is interesting to ask in which concrete life world I see myself as an individual, in order to be able to decide which direction I take. So it happens that I often contradict myself in life because I have a sense of balance. If you look at it that way, this is not a fundamental contradiction, but a natural and normal reaction that takes into account my personal circumstances.

But the unprovability of the divine coexists with the provable physical process. Imagine that there is only one or only the other.

Because of the mental condition of earthly inhabitants, the idea of changing reality through thought is not so far-fetched, because it is not "magical" - sorcery - but the explanation for it sounds far less mysterious than saying it is "telekinesis". However, telekinesis, remote control of thoughts, can be understood in this way.

People say things like "Does the sun have a consciousness"? And if I am willing to get an inexplicable agreement with this statement, I can imagine the entire universe as a space of consciousness, which is therefore important in order to counter the materialistic random explanation (and thus as something divine). According to which it is a matter of "blind and perfectly logical events". A blind, completely logical explanatory model such as my death or the death of my fellow human beings in the form of parents or siblings and friends is not helpful in any way. What I need is a common language that lets logic be where it makes sense, but does not want to eliminate religiosity. Since the human being is neither an animal nor a stone, because he is a human being.

This explains, for example, why atheists or people who claim to be non religious nevertheless want to marry in church or burry their dead ones through a Christian related ceremony. It would be much more powerful if they truly were acting in faith, though.

I finish with the words of G.K. Chesterton:

A nation with a root religion will be tolerant. A nation with no religion will be bigoted.

The honest man is he who is always trying to utter the unutterable, to describe the indescribable; but the quack lives not by plunging into mystery, but by refusing to come out of it.