Cracking The Code 8: Can You Become Aware Of Your Limiting Beliefs?

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.