The Voynich Ninja

Several points were brought up recently, that suggested to me that the point and usefulness of 'conventions' may not be understood in the same way by all.

The point of 'conventions' (in a way: agreements)  is for everybody to talk the same language, and facilitate communication.

The terms used don't have to be 'the best' and they don't even have to be 'very good'. As long as they are 'usable'.

So, for example, one may wonder if 'biological' is the best possible term to use for quire 13. As already pointed out, this term is used in the Beinecke's old MS description, and it probably derives from D'Imperio. If one just thinks about it, it really doesn't matter whether the contents of this quire are biological or not. Nobody knows anyway....

Trying to agree on what is the best possible term is not practical, it would probably change over time, and people would never agree about it.
People may use their own terms, but then others may not necessarily understand what they mean.

Similarly with a recent post by Anton. One may have one's personal feelings about which letter best represents which Voynich glyph.
However, readers are likely to understand Eva, possibly also Currier or v101, but not someone's personal interpretation.

I partly agree with you René, but I think anyone looking at Voynich glyphs would know what is meant by "cc" or "dg" whether or not they are familiar with EVA.

cc yes, but dg no....

Anyway, in this forum one can use the font.

I dont have a problem with the conventions an sich. They can be very convenient. My problem lies with the fact that certain conventions are suggestive of a certain interpretation, which is a hindrance for newcomers.

Let us be very realistic.

The Voynich MS has been studied for more than 100 years by now, by many thousands of people with the most diverse backgrounds, including recognised authorities in several relevant areas.

Newcomers have an absolute minimal chance of generating a new insight that is significant, and that hasn't been uttered at least several dozens of times before.

If one were to approach this in anything like an academic manner, one would find out what is the relevant literature about this subject, and read it critically.
This would completely resolve any confusion from nomenclature.
It's about 'homework'.

Quote:Similarly with a recent post by Anton.

Which one?

(31-07-2017, 11:30 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Let us be very realistic.

The Voynich MS has been studied for more than 100 years by now, by many thousands of people with the most diverse backgrounds, including recognised authorities in several relevant areas.

Newcomers have an absolute minimal chance of generating a new insight that is significant, and that hasn't been uttered at least several dozens of times before.

If one were to approach this in anything like an academic manner, one would find out what is the relevant literature about this subject, and read it critically.
This would completely resolve any confusion from nomenclature.
It's about 'homework'.

Honestly, it took me a week to gather the courage to create a response to this post because I think this approach to thinking is emblematic of the Voynich MS itself and many other social issues facing the free world. Please take into account a manner of whimsy when you read this and understand that ReneZ is the most important person with the most important site regarding solutions to the VMS.

1) Based upon the fact that the VMS has been an academic graveyard for better than 75 years, the opposite is actually true. The VMS is God's waiting room for the best and the brightest. The only hope of finding a solution lies in the very people ("newcomers") who are least likely to have anything to add to the conversation. A solution will come from three things; data, repetition, and failure. While academia is fairly reliable with data, repetition and failure are not words commonly used or accepted with academia. To simplify; Natural Selection 1, Human Selection 0 with respect to the VMS. 600 years is a LONG time. William Friedman understood the humor of the VMS in the 1940's. That's hilarious.

2) 'homework' -- so newcomers should repeat the mistakes of the past and build on them? Obviously, a person so closely involved with the rotating evolution of the VMS story doesn't believe this, even if he is forced to by precedent. Example: Currier believed that the VMS was written by 6 different hands, yet offered no proof. How about a woman who has 8 different babies? Would that potentially change her handwriting? Pen and ink differences? The weather? The bouncing of the carriage that travelled between Paris and Milan? Are we sure that what was written 50 years ago about this document is pertinent? No more or less than what is written today, if we are honest.

3) The most important reason for solving the VMS is this. For 600 years, a book has existed that humans cannot understand. It's obviously written by a human or humans. It obviously says something or nothing. Either way, this one-time pad of cipher/code/shorthand has flummoxed some of the (alleged) greatest living communicative minds of their time. What happens when the aliens land on the Champs-Elysses? How exactly is humanity going to communicate if we can't even solve a 600-year-old hidden human form of communication? From a cryptography standpoint, the VMS is extremely important. And based on the carbon-dating, the historical component of the VMS suggests that this book could provide valuable reflections on a very troublesome time in European human history. But let's not kid ourselves; the VMS does not land a colony on Mars or cure cancer or solve tomorrows human problems. It's a snapshot in time.

4) Unless. The solution to the problem becomes more important than that problem itself. Who really cares what the VMS says other than a few who admire esoterica? What we care about is how the VMS was solved. That advances human evolution.

If you want the VMS solved, there is a simple way. Get together a "Working Group" of 5-9 loyal experts offering a $10 million bounty (paid for by the Bienecke) for a specific answer whereby at least some percentage of the VMS is de-coded. Provide a set of specific specifications -- solution must be written in PDF and completely explained and repeatable under scientific method. All pages must be de-coded, including drawings, etc. Power to the people and put it in the paycheck.

If not, then let's keep talking about oyster shells on pear trees with roots of umpa loompas, which I secretly enjoy in a VMS kind of way. The truth is, this book is only valuable until it's solved. Then it goes back on the shelf next to the others.

Maybe just on point 2:

it is by not reading the literature and the work of others, that the same things (especially also mistakes) are repeated over and over again.

The most obvious example is that most people who try to decipher this text are looking for a pair of things:
1) a mapping of the Voynich characters to plain text characters (simple substitution)
2) some European language or dialect in which this means something

This isn't going to work, but to know that, one has to read a fair bit.

I do agree that the most important question may not be 'what it says', but rather 'how it was done' and even 'why'.

Your last line suggests to me that you have actually been reading quite a bit.