Other Minds: Parse-Limit of Identity Cross-Modeling

Introduction: Beyond Empathy — Into Structural Opacity

Understanding another is not feeling what they feel.
It is the attempt to traverse an unknown identity structure,
under incomplete Axiomata and unshareable Goal‑Interface trees.

The other is not a mirror.
They are a closed structural system,
partially modelable through Structure‑Cross,
but fundamentally bounded by Parse Guard incompatibility.

This article reframes intersubjectivity not as alignment,
but as bounded co‑simulation under epistemic opacity.

---

Core Protocols for Other‑Modeling Structure

Identity Construct → Boundary of Cross‑Jumpability

• Each agent encodes private constraints not accessible to others
• The deeper the constraint, the less likely Structure‑Cross will reach it
• "You don't get me" = structure rejected at identity depth, not surface difference

Example:
A trauma survivor may respond unpredictably because their Identity Construct invalidates expected jump series.

---

Structure‑Cross → Empathic Simulation Attempt

• Empathy = simulated jump execution into another's goal series
• Success depends on partial alignment of Axiomata and parse rules
• Cross fails silently if no return path is available

Example:
Misreading kindness as manipulation reflects Structure‑Cross failure at Ethics Interface interpretation.

---

Parse Guard → Inference Limits on Inner Loops

• There is no "access" to another's loop—only externally inferable feedback
• Misjudging motives = inferring jump series using mismatched parse rules
• Trust requires accepting unobservable loop validity

Example:
“Why would you do that?” signals Parse Guard violation, not logical confusion.

---

Axiomata → Incompatible Judgment Roots

• Fundamental misunderstanding arises from axiomatic divergence, not mere disagreement
• Cultural, moral, or ontological roots block full mutual modeling
• “Unreasonable” often means non‑jumpable from my axioms

Example:
A person who values honor over truth may seem irrational under a truth‑maximizing Axiomata.

---

Comparative Framework

---

Use Cases

• AI Safety
  Modeling the boundary of human‑AI understanding as jump‑limit, not explainability

• Diplomacy / Negotiation
  Diagnosing irreducible Axiomata misalignment before escalation

• Therapy
  Supporting identity structures without false full‑cross assumptions

• Literature / Film
  Designing characters as cross‑jump architectures, not psychological archetypes

---

Implications

• No one is fully understandable—they are structurally bounded by non‑shared constraints
• Trust is not knowledge—it is acceptance of unvalidated identity structures
• Empathy is not accuracy—it is temporary jump permission with rollback option

---

Conclusion

You cannot know another.
You can only simulate their jumps until your structure breaks.

The other is not a reflection.
They are a Parse‑Guarded system, just like you.

---

Part of the Structured Intelligence AI series across disciplinary frontiers.