The Dual-Closure Law of Authentic Feeling

This work introduces the Dual-Closure Law of Authentic Feeling, a framework linking philosophical, secular, and theological perspectives on authentic inward experience. The law asserts that genuine feeling arises only in beings that satisfy two interdependent conditions: (1) existential vulnerability, meaning the being’s worldly existence can be permanently ended, and (2) soul-based continuity, meaning the being possesses a singular, non-duplicable soul or soul-like entity. Biological beings meet both conditions, whereas artifcial systems (AI), which can be copied, backed up, or restarted, lack both and cannot authentically feel. The framework clarifies why existential stakes are necessary for inward experience and moral accountability. AI simulations of consciousness or sentience, despite apparent goal pursuit, self- preservation, or emotional expression, do not constitute authentic feeling. The law also introduces a realm distinction: destruction and recreation within the same worldly realm (AI) differs philosophically from death and possible resurrection across realms (biological beings), offering indirect evidence suggestive of an afterlife. The law engages key philosophical challenges, including functionalism, duplication, teleportation, and integrated information theory, demonstrating that non-duplicability and existential irreversibility are necessary for authentic feeling. Secular readers are invited to consider why mere physical processes cannot account for the stakes of permanent vulnerability, while theologians can reconcile the law with diverse understandings of the soul and moral responsibility. The Creator is treated as an exception, being self-existent and uncreated, ensuring the law’s universal applicability. Original contributions include: (a) the dual-closure principle, linking vulnerability and soul-based continuity to authentic feeling; (b) the copyability criterion, highlighting AI’s principled incapacity for inward experience; (c) the realm distinction, providing indirect philosophical evidence suggestive of an afterlife; and (d) the clarifcation of simulated versus authentic sentience, offering guidance for AI ethics. This framework synthesizes insights from Heidegger, Jonas, Parft, Avicenna, Al-Ghazali, Nagel, and Chalmers, while introducing novel arguments connecting existential vulnerability, soul-like continuity, and moral accountability. It provides a unified lens to evaluate consciousness, ethical responsibility, and the metaphysical stakes of existence.