Simply question - why encrypt the VM?
Assuming it is first half of 15th century - nothing was encrypted. It just wasn't necessary. Maybe a short message from one court to another would have been partially encrypted.
Yes, we had philosophical interest from the Arabs. But this isn't backed up with actual messages. What we have are intellectuals discussing the idea.
The same, but reduced, in Europe. Hildegard. Gonzanga. Rudolf IV. They all want to keep messages secret (Hildegard was frankly mad, and wanted to keep her ideas secret. She's probably the closest to a Voynich template).
But the simple fact of the matter was that nobody in the era thought it was necessary to create a more complicated code. Why? Because at the time, nobody could crack a more complicated code.
So we have short messages between intellectuals, in which nouns are written in a lookup code or substitution alphabet. It is one hell of a jump from that to a massive encrypted book.
So let's look at the mindset. Why would anyone encrypt a whole book? Because they thought it was full of personally important and confidential information? In which case, it would be the most important book from the era we have - because it would be unique. Nobody else from the era thought it important enough to encrypt their entire notebooks, let alone create an entirely new unbreakable encryption system.
Therefore, I think we can discard the notion it's encrypted. What's more, anybody arguing it is encrypted - or encoded - is arguing that it's nonsense. Because after so many attempts, until, or unless, a codebook arrives, the encryption system is lost forever, and is probably mathematically impossible to retrieve.
(19-09-2019, 09:37 PM)davidjackson Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Simply question - why encrypt the VM?
Assuming it is first half of 15th century - nothing was encrypted. It just wasn't necessary. Maybe a short message from one court to another would have been partially encrypted.
Yes, we had philosophical interest from the Arabs. But this isn't backed up with actual messages. What we have are intellectuals discussing the idea.
The same, but reduced, in Europe. Hildegard. Gonzanga. Rudolf IV. They all want to keep messages secret (Hildegard was frankly mad, and wanted to keep her ideas secret. She's probably the closest to a Voynich template).
But the simple fact of the matter was that nobody in the era thought it was necessary to create a more complicated code. Why? Because at the time, nobody could crack a more complicated code.
So we have short messages between intellectuals, in which nouns are written in a lookup code or substitution alphabet. It is one hell of a jump from that to a massive encrypted book.
So let's look at the mindset. Why would anyone encrypt a whole book? Because they thought it was full of personally important and confidential information? In which case, it would be the most important book from the era we have - because it would be unique. Nobody else from the era thought it important enough to encrypt their entire notebooks, let alone create an entirely new unbreakable encryption system.
Therefore, I think we can discard the notion it's encrypted. What's more, anybody arguing it is encrypted - or encoded - is arguing that it's nonsense. Because after so many attempts, until, or unless, a codebook arrives, the encryption system is lost forever, and is probably mathematically impossible to retrieve.
Why did Giovanni Fontana encrypt his work?
(19-09-2019, 09:37 PM)davidjackson Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Simply question - why encrypt the VM?
Assuming it is first half of 15th century - nothing was encrypted. It just wasn't necessary. Maybe a short message from one court to another would have been partially encrypted.
Yes, we had philosophical interest from the Arabs. But this isn't backed up with actual messages. What we have are intellectuals discussing the idea.
The same, but reduced, in Europe. Hildegard. Gonzanga. Rudolf IV. They all want to keep messages secret (Hildegard was frankly mad, and wanted to keep her ideas secret. She's probably the closest to a Voynich template).
But the simple fact of the matter was that nobody in the era thought it was necessary to create a more complicated code. Why? Because at the time, nobody could crack a more complicated code.
So we have short messages between intellectuals, in which nouns are written in a lookup code or substitution alphabet. It is one hell of a jump from that to a massive encrypted book.
So let's look at the mindset. Why would anyone encrypt a whole book? Because they thought it was full of personally important and confidential information? In which case, it would be the most important book from the era we have - because it would be unique. Nobody else from the era thought it important enough to encrypt their entire notebooks, let alone create an entirely new unbreakable encryption system.
Therefore, I think we can discard the notion it's encrypted. What's more, anybody arguing it is encrypted - or encoded - is arguing that it's nonsense. Because after so many attempts, until, or unless, a codebook arrives, the encryption system is lost forever, and is probably mathematically impossible to retrieve.
You highlight a very important question why?
I think it was encrypted, so why? Do I believe it needed to be encrypted? I doubt it, though if the contents is radically different from the drawings it is possible. So I think we have to delve a little into human psychology and also from my perspective circumstance. We might think the contents needed to be encrypted, but that does not mean the author didn't. The author may just have loved ciphers and wanted an excuse to write a book in cipher.
David, but you imply that if it was a simple encryption (to which I'll also count transcription in an unknown alphabet), we should have understood it already. Is there no middle ground then between what we should have cracked already and nonsense?
(19-09-2019, 09:53 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Is there no middle ground then between what we should have cracked already and nonsense?
Quite honestly? No, there isn't. Because anything in between would have been a leap of genius to a level above our own 21th century knowledge.
It's impossible for a 15th century cipher -
as we know it - to baffle us, yet still retain retrievable knowledge.
Prove me wrong, people!
(19-09-2019, 10:06 PM)davidjackson Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (19-09-2019, 09:53 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Is there no middle ground then between what we should have cracked already and nonsense?
Quite honestly? No, there isn't. Because anything in between would have been a leap of genius to a level above our own 21th century knowledge.
It's impossible for a 15th century cipher - as we know it - to baffle us, yet still retain retrievable knowledge.
Prove me wrong, people!
The Trithemius cipher sounds non-trivial though I haven't studied it:
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
Hildegard von Bingen's Lingua Ignota is indeed a good example of inventing a kind of constructed language. No encryption in the true sense (except the alphabet). It is not excluded that such a thing was done again.
(19-09-2019, 10:06 PM)davidjackson Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (19-09-2019, 09:53 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Is there no middle ground then between what we should have cracked already and nonsense?
Quite honestly? No, there isn't. Because anything in between would have been a leap of genius to a level above our own 21th century knowledge.
It's impossible for a 15th century cipher - as we know it - to baffle us, yet still retain retrievable knowledge.
Prove me wrong, people!
I like the last line of the New York Times article->
Why would Heidel encode his discovery? ''It was cryptological vanity,'' Dr. Ernst said.
This is personally what I have thought for some time was the biggest, though not only, reason the Voynich was enciphered. Yes, I am sure he thought the contents of the manuscript was important and would best be kept secret, but I think above all he did it, because he could! Obviously within the context of my personal theory the author was brought up with ciphers and around enciphered, so he had more familiarity than most. So he had the background and the intelligence to do it and he was demonstrating to himself how clever he was. I think human psychology is really important here.
We know it's not a common European language in a simple code - luckily there is some consensus on this.
We also suspect that a very complex code is anachronistic.
So indeed, you could ask, why?
But all other options also raise questions. If it's nonsense, why on earth write so much? Q20 would have been entirely unnecessary.