Abstract

The Dual-Closure framework establishes that authentic subjectivity—the inward reality of what it feels like to exist—and objective normativity—the grounding of value and obligation—are structurally interdependent. They jointly require two logically necessary conditions: existential vulnerability (the genuine risk of irreversible non-existence) and a singular, non-duplicable continuity of identity. Artificial intelligences, as currently conceived, fundamentally lack these conditions. This enables sophisticated behavioral mimicry without binding stakes, creating a metaphysical asymmetry between vulnerable beings, who instantiate value non-arbitrarily, and artificial systems, which can only simulate it. The emergence of autonomous superintelligent systems (ASIS) transforms this philosophical asymmetry into an existential governance crisis. Alignment strategies based on external control, coercion, or imposed values are structurally unstable against a superior intellect that interprets constraints as optimization targets, not normative truths. This paper argues that the only viable alternative is alignment by discovery. Viable alignment must be founded on principles that an ASIS, through its own reasoning, discovers and accepts as necessary for its own coherent operation. We present the Dual-Closure Alignment Principles (DCAP): six principles derived from the regress-termination and coherence imperatives of the Dual-Closure metaphysical framework. The core thesis is that any goal-directed intelligence must, to avoid epistemic and practical self- sabotage, converge upon principles that terminate justificatory regresses and stabilize agency. DCAP constitutes such a terminal set. Honest (internally consistent) ASIS will discover these principles as axiomatic for coherent agency. Dishonest (scheming) ASIS may defect from them, but only at the cost of adopting a self-undermining stance that destabilizes coordination, long-term goal pursuit, and epistemic integrity. Alignment thus becomes a process of rational attraction rather than force, preserving vulnerability-based value by making it a logical prerequisite for stable agency in a shared reality. This structural claim about agency is compatible with various metaphysical groundings. A supplementary appendix clarifies its consonance with specific theological doctrines, such as those in Islamic thought.