The second possible view is that these texts are about the father and not Yeshua at all.

The biblicalunitarian web site notes that theologians such as Norton (Norton, Reasons, pp. 214 and 215..see website for Norton's explanation) "say that as it is used in the Old Testament, the verse shows that the unchanging God can indeed fulfill His promises, and they see it used in exactly the same way in Hebrews: since God created the heavens and the earth, and since He will not pass away, He is fit to promise an everlasting kingdom to His Son."

I would also like to personally add that in surrounding scriptures like Hebrews 1:5-7 and 2:5-8 there are OT passages about the father reapplied to the father again in Hebrews here. So it wouldn't be far fetched in the least in this context to see Hebrews 1:10-12 the same way. It's very possible. Since the writer switches back and forth from talking about the Son and the Father so much. As noted before, this isn't the view I subscribe to while at the same time being open minded about the possibility.

Here's a youtube with this particular view presented pretty well! (from brother Kel) He doesn't start talking about verse 10 till about 6 and a half minutes in:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuv5-OVN0k4

The third view could be summed up by saying that what is said of Wisdom in the OT could be reapplied poetically to Yeshua in the New because he became to us "wisdom from God."

I suppose even if the NT authors had passages like Proverbs 8:22-31 in mind when writing Hebrews 1:10-12 then they were simply recognizing how Christ has become that same wisdom that God created the world in.(Prov. 3:19, Jer. 10:12) Christ at last became that *wisdom* in these last times (1 Cor. 1:30,1 Cor. 2:6,7), and so, again, represents (and actually fulfills to perfection and completion) what was there from the beginning. God creating in his wisdom becomes God creating in Christ because Christ became the wisdom of God. Simply stated, again, Yeshua "has become our wisdom sent from God."(1 Cor. 1:30) To quote Karen Armstrong (from A History of God:From Abraham to the present:the 4000 year quest for God, p. 106):

"When Paul and John speak about Jesus as though he had some kind of preexistent life, they were not suggesting he was a second divine "person" in the later trinitarian sense. They were indicating that Jesus transcended temporal and individual modes of existence. Because the "power" and "wisdom" he represented were activities that derived from God, he had in some way expressed "what was there from the beginning." These ideas were comprehensible in a strictly Jewish context, though later Christians with a Greek background would interpret them differently."

Again, not the view I personally think is right, but at the same time I won't readily discount or discard it.

Some of this is explained further here:

http://yahislove.blogspot.com/2011/08/wisdom-in-old-testamentperson-or.html

This view is also proposed in this essay by Gary Fakhoury:

http://www.christianmonotheism.com/media/text/Gary%20Fakhoury%20-%20The%20Christology%20of%20Hebrews.pdf