The Word as a Tailor in Time

I was just considering the week of Creation, and a way things may have separated out in order to work as observed. I was considering the possibility that while God is saying "let there be light," as a declaration and it is accurate to say that is when light was made, how it actually happened may still be important and may provide a clue as to why the stated timeline and the apparent timeline, from our perspective, differ. This concept assumes that utilizing our ability to know good and evil should provide accurate answers, since God indicated that if we also ate from the tree of life we would become like God ("like one of us")

Genesis 3:22

And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil."

So what if in the process of declaration, which took a short time from the perspective of God, The Word was fundamentally required to remain true? In that case, The Word would weave outward such that the statement was true for the moment it was declared. We assume the laws of physics are what has allowed for the creation of matter, but where then would the laws themselves have come from? What I am referencing would be causality in a kind of opposite direction than we experience: God says "let there be light" so The Word ripples through reality in such a way that there is light throughout time in a logical sense, altering the fabric of the void/deep such that this is the case.

Now while the first declaration may be more difficult to picture, as it feels as though the arrow of time had not yet been established, there was evening and morning the first day, and so from there God continues forward in time as we understand it currently, but The Word would need to continue making adjustments for new declarations backward in time. In fact, each new declaration would appear to require an additional step back in time from our perspective, starting with the fundamental declaration of light, which would also be the most proximal of the adjustments to us in time (edit 12/10/21: I am no longer as confident that light would be the most proximal change to us in time, the changes seem like they could have just as easily been stacked in the same order as declared, which would mean the EM fields would have been in place first, but given the Unified Theory indicating this EM force was at one point part of another force, I am uncertain either way). The rest of the changes feel like they would be the intricate and carefully arranged subtleties in subatomic particles that would arise "prior" to light existing. This would explain why, when looking back from our perspective in time, The Big Bang appears as it does, because it is not the "beginning" in any absolute sense, but it is the far edge of the tapestry of this reality from our perspective, so that is where these fundamental adjustments can be most easily seen.

As an analogy, in a physical tapestry, if one were standing on the tapestry and getting pushed along in a direction, and eventually becomes aware of all of this, I could see the person building a vantage point and looking out to see how far it goes. That person might see the edge of the tapestry, looking back against the direction they are being pushed, and assume using logic that seems sound from their perspective, that the first patch threaded is the one farthest away in that direction. However, in this analogy, what we do not realize is that the tailor (The Word) started with the same patch we started on, and threaded patches outward to fill everything in. The fact that we are being pushed along, in this analogy, has very little to do with the nature of the tapestry itself. To make this analogy more accurate, it would either be like we are standing on a two dimensional thread that was constructed from the center rather than the far end, or that we have blinders on, preventing us from seeing the tapestry in any direction but forward and backward along our line (mostly backward, but imagining primarily forward). That being said, something as simple to declare as "let there be light" or perhaps separating this realm from the waters (Gen 1:6-8) would be a complicated task to implement, from our perspective. In fact, the structure of the universe that we see, and the way the clockwork proceeds from moment to moment, seems to require, according to modern theories like quantum physics and string theory, that there is a whole tapestry like I describe (extra dimensions) outside of our field of vision, in order for our relatively simple universe to exist in its form.  Because of our perspective in time we assume that Creation was at the beginning of time, was the first patch threaded, which is likely a natural and intended function of this perspective. If you notice, this is not an inaccurate conclusion to draw, but we tend to make the scope of said conclusion broader than it actually is- assuming that the beginning of time from our perspective was the beginning of reality. Since God is not here correcting us, but instead provided a series of clues to allow us to realize this with the right mindset, it makes sense that the most popular opinion would shift to the one apparently most supported by facts, but as seen in the evolution of science, even the understanding of these facts evolves over time.

I believe it was God's act of creation on the 6th day that added the complexity to reality that we now perceive, the creation of man and woman. In creating another that can observe and comprehend reality in a way distinct from your own perspective, it would require that reality take on a much more tangible form. It could be that every curious question we might ever have through our observation of Creation had to be stitched by The Word as God was creating man, and the tangibility of reality is tied in with our observation of it. It could be that the stitching needs only to occur once man develops the capacity to observe that level of reality using the scientific method, or other similar observational methods. Both of these possibilities seem to fit with what we have determined in modern physics- it is in observation (or interaction perhaps, to a degree) that the reality of a particle is essentially "spiked" into a single location, rather than acting more like a field. If man were not here to examine such things so closely, it might very well be impossible to say if those things would happen so precisely. It could be that without man, reality would operate more like a simulation than it does today, from a single observer's perspective.

What's interesting to me is that John 1:1 says "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." This references a superposition, in a way, of The Word. I have pictured the scenario of having what would seem from our perspective like "too much power." I feel like this perspective would make more sense if there were varying levels of superheroes out there, but what if one could alter reality with a whim? This likely seems amazing at first glance, but what tangibility, what purpose, is there to reality at that point? What if you had a whim that you second guess and countermand the moment after you have it? Does the whim occur anyway? Does the second command override the first command? Even if you undo the errant whim, is reality the same to you as the moment before you had it, or is there a certain validity lost to reality from your perspective due to the fact that you had to make both changes? Would you need to concentrate forever on not having such whims in order to maintain a reality that was not constantly in flux? These are the issues, I feel like, that one would face with "too much power." So, it would seem logical in that position to find a way to separate impulse from result, and it makes sense that assigning a portion of yourself as both external and internal and then tasking it with moving through a much larger space and then time than you are moving through to enact the changes in reality you declare, could be a way to separate out this power enough to make reality more stable, and therefore more tangible. 

I have looked at the idea that this power separation effect may be temporary if done incorrectly, and snap back like a rubber band, returning to a God and void scenario. Even if this took the estimated lifespan of the universe, of what importance is that if time has become deconstructed? Would it not may as well be the moment after Creation? So it seems that the act of creation, and the act of creating additional perspectives outside of oneself in man and woman, were critical functions in limiting, in a sense, God's power. I will state here that this limitation is to God's benefit, and still leaves God with apparently limitless power from our perspective. In fact, it is only because God has declared that certain things will not occur that they will not, but still declaring a limit to one's power, drawing a line one will not cross, is a real limitation in power, specifically in the sense that an errant whim will no longer manifest immediately. 

So I pictured The Word zipping along, threading all these things together and, once time had been established, zipping backward through time primarily, to stitch what we primarily call the laws of physics into place, with the point of reference of God being at the true beginning of reality- the true beginning being at the center rather than the edge of this magnificent multiverse that we occupy. I imagine there are many more ways this can be viewed as well, already I am picturing a kind of timeless perspective of The Word making the worlds for the castles full of videos of other castles filled with paintings, as I have described before, and not minding any of it. That being said, with man being created as we have been in time, such a task seems like it would be impossibly arduous. As I have said before, since God is love, preventing man from becoming like God in Eden and at Babel was almost certainly a blessing, but this timeline is meant to prepare us for the possibility of that transition (Revelation 22:1-2 where man is back in the garden with the Tree of Life available, but the knowledge of good and evil apparently not removed). While it is stated that the leaves of the tree are eaten, it is unclear if the fruit is eaten, or why one might or might not do so, but the restriction of not eating of it is not indicated. Perhaps that is the underlying reason for this timeline; it may be up for us to decide, once such a decision can be understood.