>>22207044I like to think of her as the personification of wisdom, but I'm not telling you anything new by that. And what "wisdom", really? Being smart?
To be honest, I'm also much too exhausted for this, but I'll give it my best shot.
Why does the world exist? - per Apocryphon of John or Pistis Sophia (you can tell I only read the former), the creation of the world is Sophia's sin, and Christ is some actor who enters the world so as to redeem it. That sounds like a somewhat... resonant story, but it's a just-so story; how would the authors of any of those books known that this had happened?
But let's imagine the fullness as a sea of 1s, in a computational matrix. They're not like our digits in our computers, but something like "maximal coherence" or a "macro-1" (or whatever you want to call it). In this matrix, there is no locality, no linear temporality, and no mandatory "having to live this life"-ness - those are additional assumptions which you can derive from a more basic assumption, namely that of being a specific instance of the self, and there being multiple of these, with limited awareness - obviously, you are not getting all the knowledge of the ages beamed to you.
If you assume that, then you would get to something like a consensus-reality which would look something like our own. But that's a bit of a detail.
Imagine the "creation" of our world as actually a negative act: as a "darkening" or "sinking" of this fabric into a "lower-energy" state, but we could also say: the vacuum energy (lowest possible energy-state) of this "region" is higher, with more of it being "bound". This is a physics-leaning description.
Now let's take this and translate this into computer-terms: imagine having started a physics-simulation on your PC. Not every program is a physics-simulation, but some are. What distinguishes them? The elements of the program are constrained to behave according to the laws of physics, which are more specific than "what can be coded up".
