If the future is settled in the sense that it is exhaustively and truly describable in terms of what either will or will not obtain, then divine omniscience (the thesis that God knows all and only truths) entails exhaustively definite foreknowledge. Conversely, if the future is open in the sense that a complete, true description of it must include reference to what might and might not obtain, then divine omniscience entails open theism and the denial of exhaustively definite foreknowledge. The nature of the future is, therefore, a key issue in the open theism debate. In this paper, we develop two arguments in support of a central claim of the open future view and critically respond to several arguments in favor of the settled future view.

No abstract

Two different recombinant human proteins were purified directly from Pichia pastoris whole cell fermentation broth, containing 30-44% biomass (wet weight percent), by strong cation exchange expanded bed adsorption chromatography. Expanded bed adsorption chromatography provided clarification, product purification and product concentration in a single unit operation at large scale (2000-1 nominal fermentation volume). The efficiency of expanded bed adsorption chromatography resulted in a short process time, high process yield, and limited proteolytic degradation of the target proteins. The separations were operated using a 60-cm (d) column run at 14 l/min. For one protein, expanded bed adsorption chromatography resulted in an average product recovery of 113% (relative to fermentation supernatant) and a purity of 89% (n=10). For the other protein, the average product recovery was 99% (relative to fermentation supernatant) and the purity was 62.1 (n=10). Laboratory experiments showed that biomass reduced product dynamic binding capacity for protein 2.

Exploiting near-term quantum computers and achieving practical value is a considerable and exciting challenge. Most prominent candidates as variational algorithms typically aim to find the ground state of a Hamiltonian by minimising a single classical (energy) surface which is sampled from by a quantum computer. Here we introduce a method we call CoVaR , an alternative means to exploit the power of variational circuits: We find eigenstates by finding joint roots of a polynomially growing number of properties of the quantum state as covariance functions between the Hamiltonian and an operator pool of our choice. The most remarkable feature of our CoVaR approach is that it allows us to fully exploit the extremely powerful classical shadow techniques, i.e., we simultaneously estimate a very large number > 10 4 − 10 7 of covariances. We randomly select covariances and estimate analytical derivatives at each iteration applying a stochastic Levenberg-Marquardt step via a large but tractable linear system of equations that we solve with a classical computer. We prove that the cost in quantum resources per iteration is comparable to a standard gradient estimation, however, we observe in numerical simulations a very significant improvement by many orders of magnitude in convergence speed. CoVaR is directly analogous to stochastic gradient-based optimisations of paramount importance to classical machine learning while we also offload significant but tractable work onto the classical processor.

In this essay I respond to three of the most forceful objections to the open view of the future. It is argued that a) open view advocates must deny bivalence; b) the open view offers no theodicy advantages over classical theism; and c) the open view can’t assure believers that God can work all things to the better (Rom. 8:28). I argue that the first objection is premised on an inadequate assessment of future tensed propositions, the second is rooted in an inadequate assessment of free will, and the third is grounded in an inadequate assessment of God’s intelligence.