Hard Problem of Things

The metaphysical puzzle of individuation: What makes a "thing" a distinct, bounded object? At the quantum level, boundaries are fuzzy. At the cosmic level, everything is connected by fields and forces. Our everyday world of discrete objects (trees, cars, people) is a cognitive carving of a continuous reality. The hard problem is that "thingness" is not a fundamental property of the universe, but a useful fiction imposed by our minds. Where does a mountain end and the valley begin? At what point do the cells from your lunch become "you"? We live in a universe of processes, but we think in terms of nouns.

Example: Is a "chair" a thing? Or is it a temporary arrangement of wood molecules, soon to be kindling or dust? Its identity as a "chair" depends entirely on its function relative to a human sitter. The hard problem: The world doesn't come pre-sliced into things. We do the slicing based on our needs, language, and perception. This makes "things" profoundly relational and unstable. A physicist, an artist, and an ant would carve the same patch of reality into entirely different sets of "things." Hard Problem of Things.

by Enkigal January 24, 2026

Hard Problem of Fact

The dilemma that facts are not raw, uninterpreted bits of the world, but are always "theory-laden." What counts as a fact depends on the conceptual framework you're using. A fact is a statement about the world that we agree is incontrovertible within a given paradigm. The hard problem is that when paradigms shift (e.g., from Newtonian to Einsteinian physics), old facts can become false or meaningless. This means facts are not eternal building blocks of knowledge, but temporary settlements in an ongoing negotiation between observation and interpretation.

Example: For centuries, "The Sun revolves around the Earth" was a brute fact, confirmed by daily observation. The shift to heliocentrism didn't change the raw data (the sun's motion in the sky), it changed the interpretive framework. The "fact" became "The Earth rotates, creating the illusion of solar motion." The hard problem: There is no neutral observation language. What you call a fact reveals your theoretical commitments. A fact is like a piece in a puzzle—it only has a definite shape and place relative to the picture you're trying to build. Hard Problem of Fact.

by Enkigal January 24, 2026

Hard Problem of the Universe

The ultimate self-containment paradox: The universe, by definition, is the totality of all that exists. Therefore, any explanation for why the universe exists, or how it came to be, must posit something (a law, a cause, a god) that is itself part of or prior to that totality. This leads to either an infinite regress (what caused the cause?), a logical circle (the universe created the conditions for its own creation), or an arbitrary stopping point ("It just is"). The universe cannot explain itself from within; it is the ultimate brute fact, and that unsatisfying brute-fact-ness is the hard problem.

Example: Asking "What caused the Big Bang?" might lead to "A quantum fluctuation in a prior vacuum state." But then, what caused that vacuum state and its laws? If you say "A multiverse," what explains the multiverse's rules? The hard problem: Every explanation smuggles in new, unexplained elements. The universe is like a book that tries to tell the story of its own printing and binding. The final page would have to be outside the book, which is impossible if the book contains all pages. Hard Problem of the Universe.

by Enkigal January 24, 2026

Hard Problem of Everything

The self-defeating nature of a total theory. A "Theory of Everything" in physics seeks to unify all fundamental forces. But the hard problem is that even a perfect physical theory would not explain everything—it wouldn't explain why those particular laws exist, why there is something rather than nothing, the nature of consciousness, meaning, ethics, or beauty. More paradoxically, if a human brain is just a system obeying those physical laws, then the theory itself—and our belief in it—is just a predetermined output of the system. This undermines the very rationality and truth-seeking that produced the theory. Ultimate explanation swallows itself.

Example: Imagine physicists finally write the equation of the Theory of Everything on a blackboard. The hard problem: That equation cannot explain why it, itself, is aesthetically beautiful to the physicists. It cannot explain the feeling of awe they have. It cannot justify why logical consistency is a valid path to truth. It is a description of a meaningless clockwork, in which the clockwork's own description of itself is just another gear turning. A complete theory of the physical world leaves out the theorist, creating a Grand Explanation from which the explainer is mysteriously absent. Hard Problem of Everything.

by Enkigal January 24, 2026

Hard Problem of the Hard Problem

The dilution and trivialization of the term "Hard Problem" itself. Originally coined by David Chalmers for the problem of consciousness, it referred to questions that resist standard scientific methods due to their first-person, experiential nature. The "Hard Problem of the Hard Problem" is that the term has now been slapped onto every difficult, unresolved, or paradoxical issue in every field, from the "Hard Problem of Biology" to the "Hard Problem of Coffee Making." This overuse drains it of its specific philosophical power and turns it into a rhetorical cliché meaning "this is really tricky." The original, profound mystery gets lost in a crowd of imposter problems.

Example: Someone says, "The real Hard Problem is getting my Wi-Fi to reach the backyard." By jokingly or ignorantly equating a mere technical annoyance with the existential mystery of subjective experience, they trivialize the original concept. The hard problem: When every problem is "hard," none are. The term's power was in its specificity—pointing to an explanatory gap that seems to require a paradigm shift. Its memeification has turned it into just another way to say "this is confusing," robbing us of a precise tool for identifying genuine philosophical frontiers. Hard Problem of the Hard Problem.

by Enkigal January 24, 2026

Hard Problem of Cognitive Sciences

The meta-problem of self-reference: Cognitive sciences (psychology, neuroscience, linguistics) use the human mind to study the human mind. This creates a loop where the instrument of investigation is the same as the object under investigation. The hard problem is that any model the mind produces about itself is necessarily incomplete and shaped by the very cognitive biases, limitations, and structures it's trying to map. It's like a camera trying to take a perfect picture of its own lens—the act of observation changes and is constrained by the apparatus. We can never get a "view from outside" of cognition.

Example: A neuroscientist uses an fMRI machine (designed and operated by human brains) to study which brain regions activate during decision-making. The conclusions of the study are then processed, understood, and believed by other human brains. The hard problem: The entire epistemic chain is made of "brain stuff." If human cognition is systematically flawed in some way, that flaw would be baked into the scientific methods, instruments, and interpretations, making it invisible to us. We are using a potentially faulty compiler to debug its own source code. Hard Problem of Cognitive Sciences.

by Enkigal January 24, 2026

Hard Problem of Skepticism

The infinite regress of doubt. Philosophical skepticism questions the reliability of all knowledge claims—senses, memory, reason. The hard problem is that this doubt must eventually apply to skepticism itself. If you doubt everything, on what foundation do you stand to announce your doubt? The skeptical argument is a tool that, when used universally, saws off the branch it's sitting on. This leads to the paralysis of aporia (a state of perpetual questioning with no answers) or a pragmatic, unprincipled exception where you arbitrarily stop doubting just to function, thereby abandoning the very rigor that defined skepticism.

Example: A radical skeptic says, "I can't trust my senses; I might be a brain in a vat." You ask, "Then how do you know the concept of a 'brain in a vat' is valid? How do you know logic itself is reliable?" They must use their untrustworthy reasoning to justify their doubt about reasoning. The hard problem: Pure skepticism is a mental black hole—it consumes every proposition, including the proposition that propositions should be consumed. To live, the skeptic must quietly assume the world is roughly as it seems, making their skepticism a theatrical performance for intellectual circles, not a livable philosophy. Hard Problem of Skepticism.

by Enkigal January 24, 2026