Dear George,
I find several interesting ideas and details in your essay. For example, the text is very effective in representing the fading of the optimism that characterised scientific inquiry up to the dawn of the 20th century. I was not aware of the naively optimistic (in retrospect) 1903 quote by Michelson; one lesson we get from from it is that we must always be ready for dramatic revolutions in fundamental physics...
The core of your essay is your revised Genesis: first the step from 0 to 1 - perhaps, the hardest to be explained without resorting to some external metaphysical intervention (or the only one that actually needs it?) - then the appearance, through Necessity, of logic and mathematical form, and finally sound, for the physical Cosmos (good choice of icon!).
"Physical reality begins to flow along a precise set of potential pathways available in the Form." Very nice formulation! The idea of a universe that is born as mathematical (and geometrical), and then evolves into a physical phase, is attractive - I find it even 'natural' - and can be also found, in various forms, in approaches that, unlike yours, try to avoid external purposeful interventions such as 'the voice'. This would indeed provide a simple and rather convincing explanation of the unreasonable effectiveness of math in physics, and one not too distant from Tegmark's conjecture. Personally, I do not see the step from pure math (and computation!) to a physical universe as requiring external and purposeful intervention, as much as the step from 0 to 1 (although quantum-mechanical arguments circulate that tend to explain also the latter).
Chapter Omega is much harder than Chapter Alpha to grasp. You seem to suggest an identification of Void and Voice with, respectively, 0 and infinity in mathematics, but I spot a potential loop here: infinity (the Voice) is a product of mathematics, that is in turn created by the Voice... And one needs a well developed sense of myth for absorbing the image of the 'mutual self-reflection' of Void and Voice, its meaning, and its relevance for Creation.
It occurs to me that your myth is basically binary (Void-Voice), while, under a Christian perspective, it should probably be ternary. Are the two compatible? Who might be the missing third person in the Void-Voice dualism?
Regards
Tommaso