Hartford’s Eternal Conjecture

Philosophy-savvy lawyer Andrew Downing Hartford proposes an Eternal Conjecture (EC) (aka the Eternal Past or EP Conjecture) such that “IF there ever is Something, there always was Something, because no something (existence) comes from absolute Nothing (no existence)”. Hartford’s theory of consciousness, which builds on the EC, argues that because always is the single Source of all existence—including the 1st person mindedness we possess (consciousness)—that always Something (Source) must be Minded; otherwise, we couldn't be. That’s because the always-existor is 1st and last in the same 1 instance, and so we exist in this Source’s Domain in the middle (Hartford, 2019, 2026).

Always-Existor

In the Eternal Conjecture, “always” is recognized as a 1st condition that must be satisfied by at least 1 base case if there ever is existence (Something). The always-existor is something that has a 1st instance which is uncaused, un-beginning, and ontologically prior to time or computation, existing at and as the global origin. The same always Source, which is un-beginning is invariant (unchanging) and thus also un-ending (forever): connecting 1st to last. Taken all together, we find the always-existor is both “before all time” (un-beginning) & also “beyond all time” (un-ending). If something is both before and beyond all time, it is therefore “for all time” too: that’s because 1st and last include “the middle” (all instances). Crucially, Eternal (always & forever) and time are different concepts. Always is not equivalent to past time (or “time = 0”), and forever is not equivalent to future time; past time and future time are our concepts from the middle. Eternal is more fundamental, and this a priori interpretation recovers the classical definition of ‘always’ through a deeper principle. For comparative intuition to the cosmological arguments, we don’t think backward to the Source. This a-cosmological argument argues that “always” has first priority as the base case (1st principle).

Minded Source

Hartford argues there cannot be a minded Domain with a mindless Source because we cannot separate the 1 Domain from its 1 Source. The Eternal Conjecture provides the necessary ontological scaffolding to make this conclusion valid: (1) arguing for necessity vs. contingency of the base case (always must have existed as 1st); (2) arguing for uniqueness vs. multiplicity (only 1 possible always something); (3) deriving a 1st and Last condition (connecting always to forever through invariance); and (4) thus finding 1 Eternal Instance (always and forever are the same instance). What is essential about this combination is that it yields a single, unique and necessary Source existing in one Eternal instance, which entails that there is a single Domain which we—and our consciousness—are a part of. For “always” (the Source), there is no distinction between its original possibility and its 1st actuality; they are the same. Likewise, because always is also last in the same 1 eternal instance, there's no separation between its original actuality (1st) and the totality (last). Being both 1st and last in the way that it is, the always-existor is paradoxically both “a-categorical” (uniquely not encoded, not a defined object) and "all-categorical" (the source or ground of all existence and all categories). Only what is possible in the Source can be possible in us, and only what is possible in us can become actual.

Phenomenology that is actual in the Domain (such as consciousness) cannot arise from a Source in which it is absent. On this basis, Hartford infers that the Source is Minded. And yet, the always-existor is not a physical object (without any space) or a mathematical object (not formally definable, because always is not encoded with an explicit identity). Because it is without space or quantum information, always is not a computer of any kind. Because it is ontologically before all time, always is not an algorithm or computation of any kind (Hartford, 2026).

Against AI Consciousness

The always-existor is therefore the natural counter-example to the assumptions underlying artificial sentient intelligence and the computational consciousness hypothesis: a necessary Something that is Minded, but not a computer or algorithm of any kind. From this perspective, Hartford asks, “Given the Source of consciousness is not a computer or computational, why should we expect computers to be conscious?” While “it remains to be seen whether artificial consciousness is in the domain of all possibilities, we should not presume that we will necessarily build computational consciousness.”

Against Emergence

In the Eternal Conjecture, our observed growth of complexity and emergence through evolution is not untrue, but it has “scope” and “context”. There is ‘scope’ because evolution does not explain Nature’s Base Case (Source): the always-existor is un-caused and un-beginning; it did not evolve or emerge from any-thing. The ‘consciousness is explained by emergence’ arguments are blunted by the eternal conjecture because no-thing “emerges” from the perspective of a global Source which is 1st & last. There is environmental ‘context’ to our scientific descriptions because they are taking place in the middle. Notwithstanding the above, because always cannot be observed or proven, in the Eternal Case of Something v. Nothing, it must be decided axiomatically by a 1st party for themselves (Hartford, 2026).

References

Hartford, Andrew (2019). Personal communication. The EP Conjecture (Eternal Past Conjecture). https://www.hartfordlab.com/uploads/2/0/5/0/20500914/the_ep_conjecture_argument_by_adh.pdf

Hartford, Andrew (2026). The Eternal Conjecture (fka EP Conjecture), particularly sections #0.2026, #1.2025, #2, #4.17, #4.1925, #4.354, #4.5, #5, #5.1978, #5.2026, #11.11, #11.5, #12.5, #25.5, #33.5, #64, #68, #77.7, #98. eternalconjecture.com