Hard Problem of Technology

The Control Dilemma: The more powerful and complex a technology becomes, the more it requires other complex technologies to control it, creating an infinite regress of dependency and unintended consequences. We invent nuclear fission, then need control rods, containment vessels, and international surveillance to manage it. We create the internet, then need firewalls, algorithms, and cybersecurity to curb its harms. The hard problem is that technological solutions inevitably beget new, often more wicked, technological problems. True mastery recedes like a horizon; we are perpetually patching the leaks in a dam we chose to build.

Example: Social media algorithms (a technology) were created to increase engagement. They succeeded, but unleashed misinformation and mental health crises. The proposed fix? Better AI moderation algorithms (more complex technology). This new AI will itself have unintended side-effects, requiring yet another layer of oversight tech. The hard problem: We are on a treadmill, using technology to solve the problems caused by prior technology, accelerating into a future where our society is a fragile house of cards built entirely on layers of opaque, interdependent systems we no longer fully understand or control. The tool begins to dictate the tasks. Hard Problem of Technology.

by Enkigal January 24, 2026

Hard Problem of Progress

The problem of valuation: Progress toward what? We conflate technological advancement with moral or civilizational improvement, but they are not the same. You can have progress in computation alongside regress in democracy, progress in medicine alongside regress in community cohesion. The hard problem is that there is no objective, universally agreed-upon metric for "progress." It is a normative, value-laden concept. One group's utopia is another's dystopia. Therefore, any claim of progress is inherently political, reflecting the values and goals of the person making the claim, not an empirical fact about the world.

Example: Is a society with smartphones, genetic engineering, and space tourism, but with rampant inequality, anxiety, and ecological degradation, "more progressed" than a stable, agrarian society with strong community bonds, low stress, and sustainable practices? Techno-optimists say yes; advocates of degrowth or traditionalism say no. The hard problem: There's no scientific instrument to settle this. It's a philosophical and ethical judgment call. History isn't a video game with a single high-score; it's a messy story with multiple, conflicting plotlines, and we can't agree on what a "good ending" even looks like. Hard Problem of Progress.

by Enkigal January 24, 2026

Hard Problem of Politics

The problem of collective decision-making under irreconcilable pluralism. Politics aims to organize societies where people have fundamentally different values, beliefs, and desires. The hard problem is that no system can fairly aggregate these preferences without violating some core principle (like majority rule trampling minority rights, or consensus leading to paralysis). Every political theory—democracy, liberalism, socialism—has a fatal flaw when implemented in a world of real, diverse humans. The search for a perfectly just and stable system may be logically impossible, condemning us to a perpetual, messy negotiation between order and freedom, equality and excellence.

Example: A community must decide: Build a hospital or a school? The sick and elderly prefer the hospital; families with kids prefer the school. A vote creates a winner and a resentful loser. Compromise (a smaller version of each) may satisfy no one fully. The hard problem: There is no "correct" answer discoverable by reason or science. Any decision will impose someone's values on someone else. Politics is the arena where this irreducible conflict plays out, not to be solved, but to be managed. The ideal system is a mirage; the best we can do is avoid civil war while bickering endlessly. Hard Problem of Politics.

by Enkigal January 24, 2026

Hard Problem of Economics

The micro-macro divide: Economics struggles to coherently connect the behavior of individual agents (assumed to be rational, self-interested) with the emergent phenomena of the whole economy (booms, busts, inflation). Models that work for a household or firm fail catastrophically at the national level (the fallacy of composition). The hard problem is that the economy is a complex, adaptive system of billions of interacting, emotional, and sometimes irrational people. It's like trying to predict the weather by studying a single molecule of air. The elegant mathematical models provide a comforting illusion of certainty but repeatedly break down in the face of real-world crises, bubbles, and panics.

Example: For an individual, saving money is prudent. But if everyone suddenly increases savings simultaneously (the "paradox of thrift"), aggregate demand plummets, businesses fail, unemployment rises, and people end up poorer overall. The rational individual act leads to a collectively irrational outcome. The hard problem: Economics cannot be reliably scaled up. Policies that seem sound in theory (austerity, deregulation) can trigger disaster in practice because the model's simplifying assumptions (perfect information, rational actors) evaporate in the chaotic reality of herds, fear, and speculation. The economy is a story we tell ourselves, and sometimes the characters rebel against the plot. Hard Problem of Economics.

by Enkigal January 24, 2026

Hard Problem of Formal Sciences

The paradox that formal systems like mathematics and logic, which are human creations of pure thought and symbol manipulation, describe and predict the physical universe with uncanny, often inexplicable accuracy. These sciences deal with abstract, necessary truths (2+2=4 is true in any possible universe). The hard problem is why these mind-born rule-sets, which require no empirical input, are so deeply "baked into" the fabric of our contingent, empirical reality. It's the question of whether we invent mathematics or discover it, and if we discover it, why is the universe inherently mathematical? The success of the formal sciences suggests a pre-established harmony between human reason and cosmic structure that borders on the mystical.

Example: A mathematician, working purely from axioms and logic, derives a strange, non-intuitive structure called a "Lie group." Decades later, a physicist finds that this exact mathematical structure perfectly describes the behavior of fundamental particles and forces in the Standard Model. The hard problem: How did a game of intellectual symbols, played out on notebooks, anticipate the operational code of the cosmos? It's as if the universe runs on software written in a programming language that the human brain, by sheer coincidence, independently invented for fun. This "unreasonable effectiveness" is the foundational shock of the formal sciences. Hard Problem of Formal Sciences.

by Enkigal January 24, 2026

Hard Problem of Logic

The problem of self-application: Can the rules of logic be used to justify logic itself without circularity? Logic is the assumed foundation for all rational discourse and proof. But any attempt to prove that logic is valid (e.g., that the Law of Non-Contradiction holds) must use logical inference, thereby assuming what it sets out to prove. This leaves logic resting on an article of faith—that our cognitive machinery for reasoning is reliable. Furthermore, formal logical systems (like arithmetic) are inherently incomplete (Gödel), meaning there are true statements they cannot prove. The ultimate tool for certainty contains unavoidable uncertainties.

*Example: You say, "Logic is valid because it's self-evident." I ask, "Is that statement logically derived?" If yes, it's circular. If no, then you've used something other than logic (intuition) to justify logic, undermining its foundational status. The hard problem: We are trapped in a system of thought we cannot step outside of to validate. It's like trying to use a ruler to check if the ruler itself is 12 inches long. You have to assume the ruler is accurate to begin with. Logic is the ruler we use to measure all truth, but we can never truly calibrate it.* Hard Problem of Logic.

by Enkigal January 24, 2026

Hard Problem of Evidence

The interpretive gap: Evidence is never self-interpreting; it is always filtered through a prior framework of beliefs, theories, and assumptions (a "paradigm"). A single piece of data can be used to support wildly different conclusions. The hard problem is that there is no such thing as "raw" or "theory-neutral" evidence. What counts as evidence, and how much weight it carries, is determined by the very worldview it is meant to test. This creates a hermeneutic circle where beliefs shape the evidence, which then selectively confirms beliefs.

Example: Two people see the same rainbow. A physicist sees evidence of refraction and wavelengths. A theologian sees evidence of a divine covenant. A pot of gold enthusiast sees evidence of leprechauns. The photons hitting their retinas are identical. The hard problem: The "evidence" of the rainbow is not in the light, but in the interpretation. In a courtroom, a fingerprint is strong evidence only if you already believe in the reliability of forensic science and the integrity of the chain of custody. Evidence is a conversation, not a commandment. Hard Problem of Evidence.

by Enkigal January 24, 2026