What does this movie tell us about the modern university?

Last night, my wife and I watched the movie, Wit.

You can watch the full movie here (free with ads). I should warn that some of the content is quite disturbing and confronting.

I asked Google Gemini the following question:

"the movie wit, starring emma thompson, features two professors, one of oncology and another of english literature. the latter has terminal cancer. in spite of their academic credentials, neither seems equipped to cope with the human side of the suffering of the patient. alisdair macintyre was a critic of the modern university. what might have he said about this movie?"

Here is the answer.

"Alasdair MacIntyre, a prominent critic of the modern university and contemporary moral culture, viewed modern institutions not as communities dedicated to a shared human good, but as bureaucratic structures driven by specialization, technical expertise, and managerial effectiveness.

Based on his philosophical framework—most notably developed in After Virtue—MacIntyre would likely view the dynamic in the movie Wit as a quintessential illustration of the moral and intellectual failures of the modern university. Here is what he might say about it:

1. The Triumph of Bureaucratic Expertise Over Human "Telos"

MacIntyre argued that modern academic disciplines have abandoned any coherent notion of a unified human telos (purpose or ultimate goal). Instead, they have fractured into compartmentalized technical specialties.

• The Oncologist: Represents the epitome of modern "technocratic" or "managerial" expertise. To the hospital and the university, medicine is treated as a problem-solving science rather than a moral practice aimed at human flourishing. The patient is reduced to a data point, a mechanical puzzle, or a vehicle for research.
  
  
• The English Literature Professor: Though her field deals with the humanities, the modern study of literature has similarly grown hyper-specialized, detached, and academicized (focused on obscure analysis, such as John Donne’s holy sonnets, rather than wisdom or existential truth).
  
  

2. The Failure of Emotivism and Detached Rationalism

MacIntyre famously claimed that modern moral discourse has devolved into emotivism—the idea that ethical judgments are merely expressions of personal preference or feeling rather than rational truths.

• Neither professor is equipped to handle human suffering because their education has stripped them of a shared moral language.
  
  
• The literature professor spent her life analyzing deep themes of mortality and grace on paper, but because modern academia treats texts as objects of clinical critique rather than guides for living, she remains entirely unprepared to face her own mortality with actual grace. Her knowledge was purely aesthetic and intellectual, leaving a void where real moral virtue should be.
  
  

3. The Loss of Genuine Community

For MacIntyre, universities were historically meant to be traditions-based communities focused on cultivating virtues.  He viewed the modern university as having traded this for bureaucratic careerism and bureaucratic compartmentalization.

• In Wit, the coldness of the hospital-university complex highlights a complete absence of genuine human community. Interactions are transactional and analytical.
  
  

In short, MacIntyre would likely argue that Wit demonstrates the tragic irony of the modern academy: it produces hyper-competent specialists who know an immense amount about narrow subjects, yet are entirely illiterate in the art of being human."

That is a beautiful reflection. My enjoyment of it is somewhat overshadowed by my awareness that AI produced it. It also raises all questions about how to use AI in ways that do not diminish my own humanity.

Philosophical perspectives on the emergence of molecular structure

 In philosophical discussions of emergence and reductionism in chemistry, molecular structure has received significant attention and debate. Sometimes molecular structure is used to justify strong emergence, i.e., that molecular cannot be predicted, even in principle, solely from quantum theory.

Primas was one of the first to claim that molecular structure could not be reduced to quantum physics. Consider the following statements.

“From a physical point of view the crucial point of a Born–Oppenheimer description is not a simplification of the mathematical problem, but the replacement of the basic theory by a related but qualitatively new one…

[the structure of benzene] does not exist in a full quantum-theoretical description since electrons and nuclei are entangled by Einstein-Podolsky–Rosen correlations. The concept of molecular structure does not follow from first principles - all molecules with the same empirical formula have the same Schrödinger equation, so that, at this level, the shape of a molecule as the main feature of molecular chemistry is simply not in evidence. In a quantum theoretical description the molecular shape emerges by abstracting from the actually existing Einstein-Podolsky–Rosen correlations between the electrons and the nuclei. Historically, the structure concept has been introduced into quantum chemistry by the so called Born-Oppenheimer approximation. But this terminology is misleading since the main issue is not an approximation, but the breaking of a holistic symmetry.”

I have italicised claims that are contestable and that I will discuss further below.

Cartwright has given philosophical arguments as to why chemistry cannot be reduced to physics. In this context, she claims (pp. 106-7)

“The typical method of quantum-mechanical treatment of molecules begins with the Born–Oppenheimer approximation…

This approximation treats the atomic nucleus as a classical particle. But this fundamentally violates quantum mechanics which, following the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, maintains that we cannot have a simultaneous assignment of fixed positions and fixed momenta. The approximations that provide the reduction violate the very theory that the chemistry is being reduced to… the success of quantum chemistry relies fundamentally on assumptions that belong to classical chemistry.” 

This claim that the BOA violates the Heisenberg uncertainty principle was rebutted in an earlier post and discussed in more detail by Huggett et al. Nevertheless, Lombardi et al. are not satisfied by the rebuttal.

Hendry claimed molecular structure is evidence of strong emergence and/or downward causation. In a similar spirit, Ellis and Drossel argued that crystal structures in solid state physics are evidence of strong emergence. The arguments of Hendry have been criticised by Seifert. The arguments centre around the fact that the molecular structure is a classical entity and a concept that is imposed, whereas a logically self-consistent approach would treat both electrons and nuclei quantum mechanically. It is claimed that the existence of molecular structures is assumed and not derived in quantum chemistry calculations as they assume the Born-Oppenheimer approximation (BOA). 

Scerri responded to these arguments claiming that chemistry (particularly the concept of molecular structure) is irreducible to quantum physics. He claimed these arguments are not valid because they misunderstand the role of the BOA. It does not violate the uncertainty principle and in practice chemists can and do perform non-BOA approximations. 

Fortin et al. rejected the view that decoherence can explain isomerism, as decoherence does not resolve issues associated with the quantum measurement problem. 

Franklin and Seifert claim “the problem of molecular structure just is the quantum measurement problem.” This is debatable. Most molecular structures can be understood in terms of the nuclear probability density having a unique maximum and decoherence then is not relevant. Decoherence and the collapse of the nuclear wavefunction are only relevant in systems such as ammonia and stereoisomers in which there are molecular structures with equal energy and separated by high energy barriers.

I now respond to some of the contestable claims of Primas.

“electrons and nuclei are entangled by Einstein-Podolsky–Rosen correlations”

It is possible to quantify and calculate the amount of entanglement between electrons and nuclei in a specific quantum state. In an EPR state the entanglement is maximal. In the BOA wavefunction entanglement is present, but is absent in the crude BOA. The entanglement has been estimated in benzene and is very small. The only molecules where the entanglement may be significant are those, such as isomers, where there are two degenerate molecular structures and the overlap of the associated nuclear wavefunctions is small (i.e., the tunnel splitting is small). But then, in most chemical situations decoherence will wash out this entanglement.

“all molecules with the same empirical formula have the same Schrödinger equation, so that, at this level, the shape of a molecule as the main feature of molecular chemistry is simply not in evidence.”

This is the problem of isomers. It is resolved because isomers are present in the solution to the Schrödinger equation, as I argued earlier.

“the crucial point of a Born–Oppenheimer description is not a simplification of the mathematical problem, but the replacement of the basic theory by a related but qualitatively new one… the main issue is not an approximation, but the breaking of a holistic symmetry.”

This seems subjective to me. I see the BOA as just a well-justified approximation. The electrons and nuclei are treated differently because they are. They have vastly different masses and this affects how they can be treated in any solution to the full Hamiltonian. Nevertheless, the BOA is a quantum theory and the nuclei are described by a wavefunction.

As discussed earlier, for small molecules in practise it is no longer necessary to use the BOA and the electrons and nuclei can be treated on an equal footing. Molecular structure is present in solutions to the full Schrödinger equation.

I wonder if the objection to use of the BOA is any different to the use of approximations in other theories? For example, consider theoretical treatments of the motion of planets in the solar system. The effects of all the planets are not treated on an equal footing. The effect of other planets on a planet of interest are treated perturbatively.

In conclusion, the arguments that molecular structure is evidence of strong emergence are weak. Some confusion may partly arise from misinterpreting the significance of the following valid observations.

i. Molecular structures were first conjectured before quantum theory was proposed.

ii. The BOA was proposed to explain molecular structure from quantum theory.

iii. Today, almost all calculations of molecular structure assume BOA.

iv. Chemists talk about molecular structures largely in classical not quantum terms.

However, the scientific reality is that for small molecules their structure, can be understood, described, and calculated in purely quantum terms. Yet, that understanding provides a strong justification for the validity of the BOA and for the convenience of using classical language to describe molecular structure.

I stress that the weakness of the arguments for the strong emergence of molecular structure, does not mean that an emergent perspective is not relevant to chemistry. Molecular structure is emergent, when defined in terms of novelty. This leads to effective theories defined in terms of potential energy surfaces. Furthermore, as the next section argues chemistry exhibits novel properties, concepts, and theories that are not present in physics.

This post is extracted from Section 15, of my review article "Emergence: from physics to biology, sociology, and computer science."

A new version of my review article on emergence

On the arXiv, I have posted a new version of my review article, Emergence: from physics to biology, sociology, and computer science.

I have added expanded sections on molecular structure, quantitative measures of causal emergence, and biological evolution.

There are also many minor additions and corrections. I hope the hyperlinked Table of Contents is helpful.

I welcome feedback and suggestions. I am sure there is much more to do.

Quantum justification for classical discussions of potential energy surfaces in chemistry

 In computational quantum chemistry, the Born-Oppenheimer approximation (BOA) is used to determine potential energy surfaces (PES) for electronic states of molecules. It is standard practise to identify local minima on a PES with molecular structures. Molecular binding energies are identified with the difference in energy between these minima and the energies of the isolated atoms of which the molecule is composed.

 A chemical reaction between two molecules A and B to produce C can be understood in terms of the PES for the composite system consisting of all the atoms in A and B. The dynamics of the chemical reaction can be described in terms of a path on the PES that goes from the local minimum associated with A and B infinitely far apart to the minimum associated with the structure C. The path will pass through a saddle point on the PES and this is identified with a transition state in the chemical reaction and its energy determines the activation energy for the chemical reaction. The local curvature of the PES near a minima can be used to determine force constants for harmonic motion and the associated vibrational frequencies of a molecule.

This picture is a completely classical one and so may motivate a claim that chemists mix classical and quantum concepts and calculations in an ad-hoc manner. (This kind of argument is often used by philosophers to claim that chemistry cannot be reduced to physics). This is unfair because a quantum description of the nuclear dynamics can be given in terms of quantum wave-packets, consistent with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, and whose dynamics is defined by the quantum equation for nuclear motion that is given by the BOA. Furthermore, the dynamics of the centre of a wave-packet is given by classical equations of motion (Ehrenfest’s theorem). Thus, the classical language used by chemists can be viewed as a justified and compact version of a quantum description.

Structural isomers. Isomers are associated with different local minima on the electronic ground state potential energy surface for a given combination of atoms. To understand a quantum description of isomers, consider a reaction coordinate associated with an isomerisation reaction (i.e. conversion of one isomer to the other). There are three energy scales of relevance: the energy difference between the ground state energy of the two isomers, the magnitude of the barrier height (activation energy), and the quantum zero-point energy associated with vibrations in the direction of the reaction coordinate. Denote these energies as dE, Eb , and Ezp, respectively. If dE ~ Ezp << Eb then the nuclear probability density rho(R) for the vibrational ground state will have two local maxima, corresponding to the geometries of the two isomers. If dE >> Ezp then the nuclear probability density rho(R) for the vibrational ground state will have only one local maxima, corresponding to the lower energy isomer geometry. However, the geometry of the higher energy isomer can be found as a local maximum in the nuclear probability density rho(R) for one of the excited vibrational ground states. 

 Figure. Potential energy surface associated with the two structural isomers of HOCO. TS_n denote different transition states associated with the chemical reaction OH + CO -> H + CO2. Taken from Bui et al.

What does the Born-Oppenheimer approximation mean for emergence?

Most philosophical debates about the emergence of molecular structure centre around the issue of irreducibility. Specifically, can the existence of structures be predicted from quantum theory without assuming their existence or invoking classical concepts? I will argue that the answer is yes, contrary to much of the philosophical literature, which relies heavily on the widespread use of the Born-Oppenheimer approximation (BOA) in quantum chemistry calculations. However, the fact that these arguments for irreducibility are weak does not mean that emergence (defined in terms of novelty) is not central to chemistry.

In a previous post, I discussed recent work showing how the BOA is not necessary for quantum chemistry and that molecular structure can be defined independently of it.

However, since the BOA plays a central role in the philosophical arguments, it is worth reviewing what it is and what it does and does not assume or mean.

In 1927, Born and Oppenheimer introduced an approximation to allow the solution of the full quantum equations for electrons interacting with charged nuclei. Without the BOA, much of theoretical chemistry and solid-state physics would be incredibly difficult in practice. The approximation is based on the separation of time and energy scales associated with electronic and nuclear motion. It leads to the concept of potential energy surfaces for electronic states. They define an effective theory for the dynamics of the atomic nuclei in a molecule or solid.

The full Hamiltonian (given earlier) can be denoted by

 

where the first term is the kinetic energy operator for the nuclei. In the Born-Oppenheimer approximation (BOA) the full wavefunction is written as a product of a nuclear wavefunction and an electronic wavefunction.

Substituting this in the eigenvalue equation for the full Hamiltonian leads to separate eigenvalue equations for the electronic and nuclear wavefunctions, assuming terms depending on gradients with respect to R of the electronic terms can be neglected.

 

In the first equation, the nuclear co-ordinates appear as parameters not as operators. This is central to the philosophical debates.

The second equation can be viewed as an effective Hamiltonian for the nuclear degrees of freedom. The function E_e(R) defines the potential energy surface of the molecule. 

In the BOA the nuclear probability distribution defined above is

 

As discussed in the earlier post, the structure of many molecules can be defined in terms of the value of R at which the probability is maximum. 

I make four points about the BOA that are relevant to philosophical debates about whether molecular structure is predictable in a logically consistent manner from quantum theory.

1. The BOA does treat the nuclear degrees of freedom quantum mechanically. They are described by the nuclear wavefunction Phi(R), which is determined by the second eigenvalue equation. Consequently, the BOA does not violate Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, contrary to some claims in the philosophy literature.

2. The BOA is not ad hoc. Corrections to it can be calculated and have been for many molecules. These corrections are typically small, being of order (me/Mi)^1/2. Exceptions, such as near conical intersections (where the potential energy surfaces for two electronic states touch) are well-known and well-studied.

3. For most small molecules, the results of BOA calculations compare favourably with wave-functions obtained from solutions of the full quantum Hamiltonian. When there are differences, they are largely small quantitative differences. When the differences are qualitative, they have largely been anticipated from knowledge of the limitations of the BOA.

4. The Born-Oppenheimer approximation is an example of a general approach to quantum mechanics problems, discussed by Migdal. Consider a system composed of two subsystems that have dynamics on two vastly different time scales, termed fast and slow. The effects of the fast system on the slow system can be treated by adding a potential energy term to the Hamiltonian operator of the slow system. 

In forthcoming posts, I will discuss quantum justifications for classical descriptions of nuclear dynamics on potential energy surfaces and then discuss philosophers' views about the BOA and molecular structure.