Exist~Dissolve

1. PSA theory asserts that sin incurs a “penalty."
   
2. This penalty is based upon God’s decision concerning sin.
3. God’s decision in this matter is free and in accordance with God’s will, as there is no force which compels God to choose or act in one way or the other.
4. God has determined that the penalty incurred from sin terminates in the death of the sinner.
5. God has determined that this penalty cannot be mitigated unless satisfactory payment is rendered.
6. God has determined the terms of the penalty;
7. It is also God to whom satisfaction must be rendered.
8. All humanity has sinned and incurred the penalty of death.
9. Satisfaction for this sin can only be accomplished by full satisfaction of the penalty—the death of every sinner.
10. God has determined that satisfaction of penalty must be rendered by those to whom it applies.
11. Christ has experienced death, and mysteriously unites the universal sin of humanity within a singular death.
12. And God has accepted Christ’s death in the place of multitudes of sinners, counting his singular death efficacious for remitting the universal penalty due for innumerable sinners.
13. As already stated, no necessity determines the free and willful decisions of God.
14. If God decrees one thing, God is perfectly free to recall said decree, for God is not bound by any force located outside the divine nature and will.
15. God has determined that the penalty for sin is death;
16. However, it logically follows God is similarly free to decree that the penalty for sin is absolved, without the need for satisfaction to be made.
17. Therefore, if God demands satisfaction for sin, it is because this is part of God’s good and perfect will, not the result of any external necessity.
18. PSA theory asserts that Christ has come to humanity precisely to provide satisfaction for sin.
19. Moreover, it is claimed that this has been determined from all of eternity.
20. If the satisfaction of the penalty for sin is the impetus for Christ’s death, then Christ’s will and that of the Godhead are opposed.
21. This is necessary, for in the Cross Christ reveals a desire and will to remove the penalty which exists according to humanity’s sin.
22. Apart from the cross, however, the Godhead expresses a desire to maintain the power of penalty over humanity.
23. Again, this is a necessary conclusion because God’s decision to withhold the remission of penalty without satisfaction is based upon God’s choice, not upon any necessity.
24. Therefore, Christ exhibits a will in the cross that is not consonant with the divine will apart from the cross.
25. Naturally, then, it is concluded that Christ does that in the cross which God was not willing to do apart from it.
26. As God was not willing to remit sin without satisfaction apart from the cross even though no necessity prevented God from doing such;
27. It must be concluded that Christ, in the cross, compels God to do that which God does not desire to do.
28. This is so because, as shown, God was not willing to remit the penalty of sin without satisfaction outside of the cross.
29. Moreover, Christ changes God’s mind toward humanity in the cross.
30. This is necessary for apart from the cross, God was not willing to do that which Christ accomplishes in the cross, even though no necessity prevented such action.
31. Such contradiction of wills creates a division in the Godhead;
32. For, in the cross, God in Christ accomplishes that which is naturally against the will of God outside of the cross.
33. Furthermore, even if Christ’s will and that of the Godhead are seen to be united in the cross, it must be concluded that God is masochistic and sadistic.
34. God is sadistic in that God desires the death of Christ to satisfy the penalty for human sin;
35. Which penalty could have been absolved without the necessity of the cross.
36. Therefore, it must be said that for God to desire the satisfaction of the penalty of sin is to also desire the death of the Son.
37. Furthermore, God must be concluded to be masochistic.
38. As shown, the union of will of Christ and the Godhead in the cross reveals that God desires the satisfaction of the penalty of sin and the death of the Son.
39. However, the Son is one in divinity with the Godhead.
40. Therefore, for Christ and the Godhead to desire the death of the Son is for the Son himself to desire his own death.
41. In this way, the Godhead itself desires non-existence;
42. Which conclusion is absurd.

217-244-1073; kloeppel@uiuc.edu

2/22/06

CHAMPAIGN, Ill. — By combining quantum computation and quantum interrogation, scientists at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign have found an exotic way of determining an answer to an algorithm – without ever running the algorithm.

Using an optical-based quantum computer, a research team led by physicist Paul Kwiat has presented the first demonstration of “counterfactual computation,” inferring information about an answer, even though the computer did not run. The researchers report their work in the Feb. 23 issue of the journal Nature.

Quantum computers have the potential for solving certain types of problems much faster than classical computers. Speed and efficiency are gained because quantum bits can be placed in superpositions of one and zero, as opposed to classical bits, which are either one or zero. Moreover, the logic behind the coherent nature of quantum information processing often deviates from intuitive reasoning, leading to some surprising effects.

“It seems absolutely bizarre that counterfactual computation – using information that is counter to what must have actually happened – could find an answer without running the entire quantum computer,” said Kwiat, a John Bardeen Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering and Physics at Illinois. ”But the nature of quantum interrogation makes this amazing feat possible.”

Sometimes called interaction-free measurement, quantum interrogation is a technique that makes use of wave-particle duality (in this case, of photons) to search a region of space without actually entering that region of space.

Utilizing two coupled optical interferometers, nested within a third, Kwiat’s team succeeded in counterfactually searching a four-element database using Grover’s quantum search algorithm.

“By placing our photon in a quantum superposition of running and not running the search algorithm, we obtained information about the answer even when the photon did not run the search algorithm,” said graduate student Onur Hosten, lead author of the Nature paper. “We also showed theoretically how to obtain the answer without ever running the algorithm, by using a ‘chained Zeno’ effect.”

Through clever use of beam splitters and both constructive and destructive interference, the researchers can put each photon in a superposition of taking two paths. Although a photon can occupy multiple places simultaneously, it can only make an actual appearance at one location. Its presence defines its path, and that can, in a very strange way, negate the need for the search algorithm to run.

“In a sense, it is the possibility that the algorithm could run which prevents the algorithm from running,” Kwiat said. “That is at the heart of quantum interrogation schemes, and to my mind, quantum mechanics doesn’t get any more mysterious than this.”

While the researchers’ optical quantum computer cannot be scaled up, using these kinds of interrogation techniques may make it possible to reduce errors in quantum computing, Kwiat said. “Anything you can do to reduce the errors will make it more likely that eventually you’ll get a large-scale quantum computer.”

In addition to Kwiat and Hosten, co-authors of the Nature paper are graduate students Julio Barreiro, Nicholas Peters and Matthew Rakher (now at the University of California at Santa Barbara). The work was funded by the Disruptive Technologies Office and the National Science Foundation.

http://www.news.uiuc.edu/news/06/0222quantum.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hmmm... Maybe I can get one of these to manipulate a photon in quantum superposition to do and not do my homework at the same time. According to quantum mechanics, it is the role of the observer which determines the de-superpositioning of quantum potentialities. Hopefully, my observations will always be an "A."

TUESDAY, Feb. 21 (HealthDay News) -- New research adds a twist to the debate on the origins of sexual orientation, suggesting that the genetics of mothers of multiple gay sons act differently than those of other women.

Scientists found that almost one fourth of the mothers who had more than one gay son processed X chromosomes in their bodies in the same way. Normally, women randomly process the chromosomes in one of two ways -- half go one way, half go the other.

The research "confirms that there is a strong genetic basis for sexual orientation, and that for some gay men, genes on the X chromosome are involved," said study co-author Sven Bocklandt, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of California at Los Angeles.

The link between genetics and sexual orientation has been a hot topic for more than a decade as a few scientists have tried to find genes that might make people gay or straight. In the new study, Bocklandt and colleagues examined a phenomenon called "X-chromosome inactivation."

While females have two X chromosomes, they actually require only one and routinely inactivate the other, Bocklandt said. "That way, both men and women have basically one functional X chromosome," he added. Men have both an X and Y chromosome, but the Y chromosome plays a much smaller role, he said.

Women typically inactivate one of their two X chromosomes at random. "It's like flipping a coin," Bocklandt said. "If you look at a woman in any given (bodily) tissue, you'd expect about half of the cells to inactivate one X, and half would inactivate the other."

In the new study, researchers looked at 97 mothers of gay sons and 103 mothers without gay sons to see if there was any difference in how they handled their X chromosomes. The findings appear in the February issue of the journal Human Genetics.

"When we looked at women who have gay kids, in those with more than one gay son, we saw a quarter of them inactivate the same X in virtually every cell we checked," Bocklandt said. "That's extremely unusual."

Forty-four of the women had more than one gay son.

In contrast, 4 percent of mothers with no gay sons activated the chromosome and 13 percent of those with just one gay son did.