The problem with many of the modern fake theories is that those who believe in them are often like those who believe in New World theories (or most other theories). They cherry-pick examples of similar imagery from modern sources and ignore similar imagery from medieval sources. Or they cherry-pick New World imagery and ignore similar imagery from Old World sources. These are examples of self-validation.
The problem with most of the text-related theories is their proponents have not really studied the structure of the VMS text. Torsten, at least, has made an effort to try to figure out how the tokens are constructed and how they are inter-related. This is rare among Voynich text theories. Even if it's not a perfect description of how the text is generated, it's more productive and revealing than those who try to force the text into words by starting with a substitution cipher and then subjectively rearranging everything to try to make it meaningful.
It might be an interesting exercise to try to rate various theories quantitatively.
For instance, a Voynich forgery depends on unused parchment surviving 600 years - theoretically possible but unlikely- but what are the odds? A million to 1? How many instances of such have ever been observed?
By comparison, Aliens Didit must be far less likely - no confirmed cases ever - though maybe theoretically possible - odds perhaps a trillion to 1?
(16-08-2019, 09:19 AM)DONJCH Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It might be an interesting exercise to try to rate various theories quantitatively.
For instance, a Voynich forgery depends on unused parchment surviving 600 years - theoretically possible but unlikely- but what are the odds? A million to 1? How many instances of such have ever been observed?
By comparison, Aliens Didit must be far less likely - no confirmed cases ever - though maybe theoretically possible - odds perhaps a trillion to 1?
“Scientists have calculated that the chances of something so patently absurd actually existing are millions to one. But magicians have calculated that million-to-one chances crop up nine times out of ten.” Terry Pratchett,
Mort.
Magicians win.
Don: you wouldn't get much farther than the discussion of how likely it is to find unused parchment I'm afraid. You say a million to one, but Rich would say almost 100% since Wilfrid had plenty of access to all kinds of stock.
Also, the VM is an unusual document, that's why we're all here. We're not the "Tres Riches Heures" appreciation group. Some things that are extremely unlikely to happen *did* happen with 100% certainty, since these factors produced a document that is unique in many aspects (for example, by far the longest pre-modern ciphertext).
Probability is a funny beast ...
One pre-modern ciphertext has to be the longest. We are discussing this MS just because this is the one.
It is essentially impossible to make a realistic estimate of the probability of an event, after the event has already happened.
For other points?
What could be the probability (according to Morten St. George theory) that the Cathars crossed the Atlantic in the 13th century?
What could be the probability that the Spanish settlers of Mexico took old unused parchment with them to write a book there?
What is the probability that Voynich ever saw the Kircher correspondence?
This last question can be used to illustrate another complication.
The estimate of a probability depends on the amount of knowledge about the event.
Toss a coin, and three things can happen:
- it lands on one face
- it lands on the other face
- it lands on the edge
So, if one has no knowledge about the coin, the probability is 1/3 for each.
Of course, if one knows the dimensions of the coin, one estimate better.
Many people can easily imagine that Voynich could have seen the Barschius letter, and was inspired by it.
In reality the probability of that is even smaller than him finding 50+ sheets of unused old parchment.
In my opinion, it is the task of the one who designs a theory to present it validatable. This is a particularly challenging task for "unknown terrain" such as the VMS. Possible valid and half-baked theories differ exactly on this point. Theories that are designed the way that they are neither provable nor refutable have a quality problem. The principle "I am right as long as nobody can refute me" is trivial and should not apply to serious research (reversal of the burden of proof).
I am still more interested in well-made theories that have been controversially discussed than in sensational, unprovable "beliefs."
(16-08-2019, 12:49 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Toss a coin, and three things can happen:
Four actually, it might never come down again
- that's basically the option closest to some of the most outré theories!
(16-08-2019, 09:19 AM)DONJCH Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It might be an interesting exercise to try to rate various theories quantitatively.
For instance, a Voynich forgery depends on unused parchment surviving 600 years - theoretically possible but unlikely- but what are the odds? A million to 1? How many instances of such have ever been observed?
By comparison, Aliens Didit must be far less likely - no confirmed cases ever - though maybe theoretically possible - odds perhaps a trillion to 1?
600-year old parchment usually has something on it of value, usually of more value than something that is faked. Since the odds of finding more than 100 sheets of 600-year-old blank skin in this quantity is low probability, then a palimpsest created with modern chemicals (which would "scrub" the old content better than they could do it in the Middle Ages) would be the other option.
But people who want to make money would probably try to sell the original rather than the arduous task of trying to remove everything and trying to create a fake (which is an extremely difficult thing to do). Yes, fakes exist, but most of them were done in a time period less distant, when they still knew how to do it "the old way". Very few people these days know how to write with quill on parchment (it's not easy, and painting is even more difficult, preparing the pigments is an art and applying them is harder than applying gall ink), very few know how to read and wrote old text, as on 116v, very few know how plants used to be drawn, there's just too much specialized knowledge bound up in the VMS for this to be done in a short period of time and taking a long time is not a quick route to profit.
1. The notion of proof is quite interesting one. There is well-known 4-color theorem for planar graphs, which was proved very roughly this way: if size of graph N > 1000000 then reduce it to smaller graph, otherwise check graph by means of computer program. So while the the theorem is definitely proved (its statement is true for all graphs), the question about "the proof" is not so clear. Are we ok with proving by machine? If not would we accept it if all N <=100000 were checked by human? Were is the red line?
In case of VMS the form of the solution can also be weird. What if we can guess meaning of each word, but are not able to translate it? What if we can translate each word, but cannot guess meaning?
2. But VMS is not mathematical problem, so one cannot require mathematically strict proof. Marking things as "improbable" is good approach.
Or maybe not? When using a word "improbable" good questions both for serious research and fat trolling can be: in which units do we measure probability? which of two is less improbable? at which mark does the improbability start?
3. The biggest advantage of the VMS is its size. Were it a page it would be just an endless holy war in internets.
Given this property a requirement is then the ability to explain the whole text without exceptions. A good theory either explains everything in text or has options to explain everything. Having unavoidable limitations is a bad sign.