Welcome back to our penultimate discussion of Gregg Braden’s The Spontaneous Healing of Belief: Shattering the Paradigm of False Limits, Belief Codes 25 through 28. These will blend the seemingly esoteric, spiritual nature of our shared experience called “life” along with scientific observation and experiments. I will also share some personal experiences from my life/story, as I have been uncovering much of this layer by layer over time. Most of this occurred on only a semi-conscious basis as I was still buried in my own limiting beliefs.
Belief Code 25: In a participatory reality, we are
creating our experience, as well as experiencing what we have created.
John Wheeler (1911 – 2008), professor emeritus at Princeton,
articulated his concept of the "participatory universe" across
several writings and lectures on quantum mechanics and cosmology.
·
On the shift from "observer" to
"participant":
"'Participant' is the incontrovertible new concept
given by quantum mechanics. It strikes down the 'observer' of classical theory,
the man who stands safely behind the thick glass wall and watches what goes on
without taking part. It can't be done, quantum mechanics says... May the
universe in some sense be 'brought into being' by the participation of those
who participate?"
·
On how reality and observation are linked:
"The universe does not 'exist, out there'
independent of all acts of observation. Instead, it is in some strange sense a
participatory universe."
·
On the feedback loop of quantum reality:
"Physics gives rise to observer-participancy;
observer-participancy gives rise to information; and information gives rise to
physics."
I want to give you some personal background as a prelude to
sharing two experiences that have resonated with me over the past four decades.
Apparently, I was unusually intelligent as a small child, being brought around as
part of a not-so-wonderful example of “show and tell” at the Catholic school I
attended from kindergarten through eighth grade. I was dragged in front of the
oldest children in their classroom, directed to read one of their science books
to them as an example of how they were failing in the teacher’s eyes.
I was six years old.
When they tested me to determine my IQ, something was
communicated to my parents that was explained to me years later. Where you’ll
find that most people have a proclivity towards either an analytical or a
creative way of observing and expressing themselves, I was essentially a 50/50
split. It was explained that this was fairly unusual. This will help explain a
few events, as I somewhat unconsciously set out on a quest to understand
who/what I was and how this all worked.
In the late 1970’s I met a professional woman who was
introducing me to a technique called conscious connected breathing. It wasn’t easy; I gave it a sincere effort.
At one point she looked at me while teaching a class and told me, point blank, “You
know that you’re creating all of this, right? You do create your own reality.”
My analytical side immediately protested. This was hardcore,
“See it, touch it” reality. I basically laughed at her but continued the
training.
Several years later, I found myself much further down a
spiritual path. A friend who I had known for many years revealed to me that his
wife was a trance channel. I advised him that he should go seek professional
help for his wife’s psychological affliction.
But it was true. I got to experience it many times over the
years, both as a witness and a participant. My analytical/creative split was essentially
in a screaming war with each other every time I entered this realm.
At one point, as I was engaged in questioning with “spirit,”
I was told in no uncertain terms that everything that I was experiencing was created
and drawn to myself. I screamed, “Would I be doing this to myself if I knew
what I was doing?”
The answer came back, “Exactly.”
That was more than 40 years ago. What I’ve learned and
further experienced since then has shown me beyond any doubt that this is, indeed,
a participatory universe.
My analytical side is quite happy that a distinguished
professor such as John Wheeler agreed with this and put it “out there” into
this world.
Belief Code 26: In 1998, scientists confirmed that
photons are influenced just by being “watched” and discovered that the more
intense the watching, the greater the watcher’s influence on how the particles
behaved.
I am going to give you brief, impactful synopses of
experiments through recent times concerning the nature of the quantum universe
of which we are part and whole. The original double-slit experiment took place
in 1909. The updated 1998 experiment, spelled out below, is core to this Belief
Code. Keep all this in mind as you read these purely scientific results
concerning observation in time and space:
1998: Researchers at the Weizmann Institute of Science
in Israel (led by Eyal Buks, Rafael de-Picciotto, Moty Heiblum, and colleagues)
conducted a landmark, highly controlled version of the double-slit experiment
using electrons. Published in Nature (February 1998), this study moved
the double-slit experiment from a thought experiment into precise real-world
physics.
The Setup
- Microscopic
Slits: The researchers built a microscopic electronic circuit on a
semiconductor chip (less than a micron in size) featuring a barrier with
two paths for electrons to travel through.
- The
Quantum "Observer": Instead of a human eye, they placed a quantum
point contact (QPC) next to one of the paths to act as an electronic
detector. The QPC measured whether an electron passed through that
specific path by detecting its electric charge.
- Adjustable
Detection: Crucially, scientists could turn the detector's sensitivity
up or down—effectively tuning the "amount of observation"
being performed.
Experimental Results
- No
Detection (Observer Off): When the QPC detector was turned off or kept
at zero sensitivity, the electrons traveled as waves through both
paths simultaneously, producing a clear wave interference pattern.
- Full
Detection (Observer On): When the QPC was set to clearly detect every
passing electron, the interference pattern completely disappeared. The
electrons collapsed into behaving purely as individual particles taking
one defined path.
- Partial
Detection (Continuous Scale): As researchers gradually increased the
detector's sensitivity, the wave interference pattern progressively faded.
There was a direct mathematical tradeoff between path information and
interference strength.
What It Proved
- Observation
Alters Physical Reality: The experiment directly demonstrated that the
act of measuring or extracting "which-way" information
physically collapses a quantum system's wave function.
- "Observation"
Requires No Consciousness: It proved that an observer does not need to
be a human consciousness or a large macro-object. Any physical interaction
or measurement device capable of recording path information alters the
quantum behavior.
- Wave-Particle
Duality Is Continuous: Instead of a simple "wave OR
particle" toggle, the experiment showed that quantum behavior
transitions smoothly along a spectrum depending on how much
information is extracted by the environment.
- Decoherence
as the Cause: It demonstrated quantum decoherence—the loss of
quantum wave behavior occurs because the quantum system becomes entangled
with its detector/environment, leaking path information out into the
surrounding world.
2015: Wheeler’s Delayed Choice with Massive Matter - While
earlier delayed-choice tests used light (photons), Manning et al.
(Australian National University, 2015) brought John Wheeler's original 1978
gedanken experiment to life using entire atoms.
·
How it worked: Single helium atoms were
dropped through a grid formed by laser beams. After the atom passed
through the first decision point, a computer randomly generated a switch to
either recombine the paths (testing wave behavior) or leave them separate
(testing particle behavior).
·
What it proved: The helium atom—a
physical, massive chunk of matter—behaved as a wave or a particle based on a
decision made after it had already crossed the first junction. As lead
researcher Andrew Truscott put it, "It proves that measurement is
everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking
at it."
2023: The "Double-Slit in Time" Experiment
- Physicists at Imperial College London (Tirole, Sapienza, et al.)
achieved a temporal twist on Young's classic experiment.
·
How it worked: Instead of cutting two
narrow openings in space (a physical wall), they used ultrafast lasers
to rapidly change the optical properties of a thin material (indium tin oxide)
twice in femtosecond successions—creating two slits in time.
·
What it proved: When light bounced off
the material, the temporal double-slit did not alter the light's direction in
space; instead, it changed the light’s frequency (color). The light
waves interfered with themselves across time, producing interference fringes in
the frequency spectrum.
If you’ve never explored any of this, you’ll at least admit
that we as humans have been utterly fascinated by these possibilities and
potentials. In closing out this Belief Code, I’ll give you five modern films to
check out and the quantum principles that they explore:
·
Mr. Nobody (2009): Quantum Branching,
Wave Function Superposition, Choice as Measurement
·
Coherence (2013): Quantum Superposition,
Decoherence, Schrödinger's Cat
·
Interstellar (2014): Participatory Universe,
Information ("It from bit"), Higher Dimensions
·
Tenet (2020): Retrocausality, Delayed-Choice
Dynamics, Information Inversion
·
Everything Everywhere All at Once (2022): Superposition,
Quantum Entanglement, Many-Worlds Interpretation
Belief Code 27: The prime rule of reality is that we must
become in our lives what we choose to experience in the world.
Albert Einstein spent a considerable portion of his
professional life at Princeton University, very close to where I live. At one
point, after reading “Einstein: His Life and Universe” by Walter Isaacson, I travelled
to 112 Mercer Street, his rented home, to simply sit on the front porch steps
by myself. I wanted to try and feel the energy of the man who lived there, who
offered these quotes in his search for a unified field theory:
"I want to know how God created this world. I am not
interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element.
I want to know His thoughts. The rest are details."
"Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an
inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot,
but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the Old One. I, at any
rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice."
"What really interests me is whether God had any
choice in the creation of the world; that is, whether the requirement of
logical simplicity admits any freedom at all."
"Subtle is the Lord, but malicious He is not."
"I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals
Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God who concerns Himself
with the fate and the doings of mankind."
This deep thinker, a man who literally changed the world, became,
to me, a symbol of the maxim, “Seek but do not find,” a dictum of the ego mind
as spelled out in A Course In Miracles, a book that I’ve begrudgingly studied
over many years, throwing it away several times. He never found the driving
force of his life; the unified field theory.
"I cannot stop working. I would have to give up
everything else, for the problem is so beautiful."
"I have locked myself into a mathematical prison...
Most of my colleagues consider me an old fool for spending my time on this, but
I cannot do otherwise."
"What really interests me is whether God had any
choice in the creation of the world; that is, whether the requirement of
logical simplicity admits any freedom at all."
"I have set myself a task to which I must devote my
remaining strength... Even if the probability of success is small, the attempt
must be made."
So then, do we choose what we wish to experience in the
world? I once asked during a channeling session if the vitamins and supplements
that I was taking were working for me. The answer was, “If you think that they
do, they do.”
That answer has played in my mind for decades. In deep
examination, I know that I have become what I chose to experience: a skeptic
who tended to traverse the path less taken so that I could gain knowing and
find peace. It’s been far from easy, but I know that it was what I chose, what
I focused upon.
This leads directly into our final Belief Code for today;
Belief Code 28: We tend to experience in life what we
identify with in our beliefs.
What exactly is a belief?
“At its core, a belief is a mental state in which an
individual accepts a proposition or premise as true or real,
regardless of whether objective empirical evidence or absolute proof exists to
back it up.
In philosophy, cognitive science, and psychology, a belief
is considered the foundational building block of human thought and behavior.”
To me, a thought that you repeatedly think, especially with emotional
conviction, entrenches itself as an observable pattern and thus becomes a
belief.
Now, how are they formed?
·
Direct Experience: Learning through
direct physical observation or personal interaction (e.g., believing fire is
hot because you touched a hot stove).
·
Authority & Social Transmission:
Accepting information from trusted sources—parents, cultural traditions,
scientists, or institutional leaders—without verifying every claim personally.
·
Inference & Logic: Deducing new
conclusions from previously established beliefs or evidence.
·
Emotional & Psychological Needs: Adopting
beliefs because they provide comfort, order, belonging, or a sense of purpose
(such as religious, ideological, or personal self-concept beliefs).
Let’s address the types of beliefs:
·
Core Beliefs: Fundamental, deeply
ingrained views about self, others, and the world that are hard to change. ("The
world is fundamentally safe" or "I am capable.")
·
Dispositional Beliefs: Latent opinions or
convictions you hold, even if you aren't actively thinking about them. (Believing
that 2 + 2 = 4 or that your hometown still exists.)
·
Empirical Beliefs: Convictions based on
observation, testing, and sensory evidence. (Believing water freezes at 0°C
(32°F).)
·
Value / Normative Beliefs: Convictions
about ethics, aesthetics, or how things should be. (Believing fairness
is a fundamental virtue.)
Finally, in this examination, let’s address the spectrum
that this encompasses:
·
Fact: An objective, verifiable reality in
the physical world.
·
Belief: The internal acceptance of
a proposition (which may align with facts, clash with facts, or concern
subjects where facts cannot apply).
·
Faith: A specific subtype of belief held
with strong conviction, often in the absence of empirical proof or direct
tangible evidence.
After reading and thinking about this, stop and ask yourself
this question: Where exactly did my beliefs come from?
If you are uncertain, you can examine your life experiences
to date and find many threads that will lead you back to their source. This is
exactly what this Belief Code addresses.
I assume that if you’ve stuck with me this far in reading
these articles examining Gregg Braden’s Belief Codes, you are open to “shattering
the paradigm of false limits.” If so, I am happy for you because it takes a
conscious choice to look back without judgement and ask questions. You are
choosing to become a more conscious observer!
We have one final article that will cover the final three Belief
Codes and wrap up this series. I look forward to sharing this with you.






