The Voynich Ninja

(17-12-2016, 11:40 AM)-JKP Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Thanks for the correction, René. I haven't researched Voynich's biography to any extent. I wasn't aware of the information you just posted (and if it's on your site, you'll have to forgive me, I've so far only read 1/10th of the interesting information you've collected and posted).

It is quite understandable that not everyone is interested in the details of the life of Voynich. I also never cared, until just a
few years ago. It is fascinating in its own right, and only relevant if one wants to understand how the MS came to light
in 1912, and what happened in the first few decades after.

There are large parts of my site that I am sure only the fewest have read :-)

(17-12-2016, 05:58 PM)stellar Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.@ReneZ

I'm interested in your thoughts on the use of gematria as a possible solution to the VMS. 

[...]

Or do you think ReneZ that if it is in Gematria form this is like using anagrams as there is no way to prove this system.  

[...]

What would be an agreeable % that I was correct if many labels were found?

In my opinion, this is unproven. More specifically, it is unprovable.

The third point quoted above is of general interest.
It is a common misunderstanding that, if a proposed solution includes items that are facts, or suggests identifications of stars, herbs etc,  this would mean that the solution is correct.

This does not follow. An incorrect solution can be full of references to historically correct items.

Let me make a small digression, but with a point.

One of the interesting aspects of being a Voynich 'dinosaur' is to be able to see the evolution of how people approach the MS. In the early 90's, there was no WWW to speak of, and no Google. People had to read books and papers. Most people had read a lot of the standard reference works that nowadays (almost) nobody reads anymore.

There's an interesting lesson to be learned from the failure of Newbold, as recorded in these old sources.
His solution, which is certainly wrong, was very convincing for a while, exactly because his plain text included references to events that he claimed hew knew nothing about, but could be verified to be true *after*  he published his plain text.
While this seemed like the best possible proof that he had to be right, he was not, and it is largely accepted that he knew about these things (somehow) subconsciously.

(18-12-2016, 01:10 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(18-12-2016, 12:15 AM)bunny Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.[...deleted for brevity...]

I'm not checking the process or validity of people's methods, just compiling the results. In the past I have run through the process of some and spent time testing them, but it is very time consuming and I don't have time to give to that now, so I have to assume any results are honestly produced by a method someone is working on and testing themselves.  It really is just about the results offered up and that they have more in common than not.

Bunny

How can you know which are actually results, if you don't check the process or validity of people's methods? That's giving equal weight to someone who knows what they are doing and is on the right track and someone who's making it up as he or she goes.

Yes, it's time-consuming to check process or validity. Often the willingness to do this kind of legwork is what differentiates the successful researcher from the wanna-be, the wheat from the chaff. There's a wonderful film called, "Why Man Creates" that was made a long time ago that is just as valid today as it was when it was first developed that gives some insight into the dedication it takes to advance knowledge.


Often the results "offered up" by those who DON'T take the time to do the legwork have many commonalities, because people see what they want to see and we have in common our human-centric perceptions. Science is about trying to see (or sense, or record) what's actually there, no matter how improbable—the results are frequently not what we expect.

Again I stress the results are not identical, though some are, but part of a common thread.  Science in the way it is approached today is very un C15th and the assumption of what is actually there is very narrow, what you can see, touch and measure in a very sterile way, not the approach of Kepler, Tycho or the great scientists of the era.  However, it shouldn't bother you or others that some have a different approach if you think it's all rubbish.

Bunny

Yes, I think we all agree such methods are improvable in the traditional sense.


An incorrect solution, you mean not a singular correct solution.  Historically correct items typed by monkeys unlikely, subconscious knowledge imprinted maybe.  Unexplainable also maybe.

Was Newbold wrong?

"It is largely accepted that he knew about these things (somehow) subconsciously."

That's a very unscientific vague opinion from someone who is sure Newbold was are absolutely, maybe, definitely, somehow vaguely knew about it so must be wrong.  It seems more like no one could accept he actually came up with those results by unconventional means.  Not THE solution, another layer of the puzzle.


Bunny

(17-12-2016, 07:41 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Just take a look at Thomas' table on the previous page, I'll just post it here again. This is a veeeeery small section of the possible solutions. And still I can make lots of grammatical sentences with it.



- Some older friend had ten gay druids.
- Under oath will he blame the Lamb of God.
- Lesbian pimp will age for gay King of Peace.
- Isn't love childish, I'd pick magic and oral.

This is fun

So why are my sentences wrong?

Your sentences are randomly fitted together options, nothing wrong with that.  Yes it can be fun in an odd way and I can also make other sentences.  3 free verses pulled from list one word column at a time in circular fashion below:

Some search the end age - angel seed cometh, sense close this age 
Angel again seed of Adam enter - mislead
Forbid he calling name Lamb of God - under oath lips
Age see magic practice under older three - had bride the chosen doubt close the end age
Angel seed pope beginning the end age - calling, "the Lord God isn't love"
Flames had pagan blame Lord God - Plague beginning the end age
Angel said seed of Adam enter oath, forbid he calling again Lord God - hearing love childish 
Had pagan magic eternal, some older - flow
Had pagan bird blessed queen - await flames
Under close attack age bride again blessed, under love flames had calling again - Lamb of God
Isn't love why had bride again meeting - hold her close, healing
Had hold the eternal - isn't love why?
Queen close the end - age calling
Blame seed of Adam, doubt close flames - had angel seed breath
Disease deeper attack - blame lamb of God
Hasn't applied healing - had pagan magic, druids
sense mislead, why? - had angel again meeting
insane close the flames, he calling said - chosen 
Kept oath, has been had! - magician ended breath
Queen await flames, had greed  - said eternal
Kept oath, one male - had bride name chosen
Enter love friend - he calling again chosen
Hearing love shock - he may mean meeting
Insane love flames - had pick the famous
Queen mislead friend - had bride name the boy
Sense scandal forbid! Had bride ended - chosen
Under oath lips - he may blame seat
Under close shock, had angel - said "he helps"
Hold her close had calling - the King of Peace
sense close the end - he ended breath
Enter love healing - heard calling bird east

Bunny

Bunny, why did you change the word order of the columns?


Are you saying the order the words appear in the manuscript doesn't matter, plus that it's also okay to use a word value (column) more than once?

You're basically anagramming and duplicating words at whim.


If you do that, you can turn it into basically anything.

I'd like to know why you did that, why you think that's acceptable.

A bit of ofttopic about the table. There's a joke circulating in the Russian internet specifying a universal table of the like kind that can be extremely useful for bureaucrats to prepare a valid speech on any occasion. The dimension of the table is just a bit lower, if I remember correctly.

(18-12-2016, 09:37 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Bunny, why did you change the word order of the columns?


Are you saying the order the words appear in the manuscript doesn't matter, plus that it's also okay to use a word value (column) more than once?

You're basically anagramming and duplicating words at whim.


If you do that, you can turn it into basically anything.

I'd like to know why you did that, why you think that's acceptable.

Umm... I don't think I implied that word order is irrelevant, I didn't change the word order at all from the list, no anagramming, they are one after the other by column then back to the start etc.  It doesn't mean anything beyond that things which are vaguely grammatical and maybe meaningful to some can be pulled out, and each will pull out a different selection. 
I wasn't btw translating the VM text, I was examining the list of words put forwards which was obviously chosen, which I am led to understand was selected from 1,000s of possible words.  You have an extended haystack group of words (which essentially is what these methods lead to), is it possible to pull a needle out of them?  To pull out a 1:1 solution of 7 words would require the FULL list of possible words, which I don't have, but is simply done if they are known.  Doing it with meaning, and correct meaning, is not the same as randomly putting together a sentence as was done in the example enquiring why it was wrong, why was that acceptable?

The words which have been used to compile the list "nerlm nniq..."  are interesting though and I will be looking at that closer.

Bunny

Quote:There's a joke circulating in the Russian internet

Funny, the exact same joke is circulating in the Spanish one. Bureaucrats are the same the world over, I suppose....

(18-12-2016, 10:05 PM)bunny Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Umm... I don't think I implied that word order is irrelevant, I didn't change the word order at all from the list, no anagramming, they are one after the other by column then back to the start etc.  It doesn't mean anything beyond that things which are vaguely grammatical and maybe meaningful to some can be pulled out, and each will pull out a different selection. 

[deleted for brevity]

Okay, I must have misread one to get that impression, but you have started at an arbitrary point and then come round in a circle, but that implies starting anywhere, stopping anywhere and then circling around again to make it work.

There's a difference between interpreting text and shoehorning it into submission by making up your own grammatical rule (and I don't mean the poetry, I mean the starting, ending points).


Plus, there's no evidence yet that the manuscript is in English (or that it's encoded natural language).