The Voynich Ninja

Full Version: Peter Bakker on the VMS
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
(24-08-2020, 07:21 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.There is a very long thread dedicated to the auto-copy theory, in which I have presented many specific issues with the theory. So have several others. I think that the discussion is best continued there.
Most of the issues have not been properly addressed.

Now, they are classified as 'opinions' and therefore not worthy of a constructive discussion.
I would then say that opinions of people who like the auto-copy theory should also be discarded, because these are quite obviously only opinions.

A constructive discussion is always welcome. For me a constructive discussion requires at least that the participants try to explain to another what they mean. By saying something like "My opinion is based on everything I know." (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.), "It is not a good explanation." (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.) or "It focusses on one aspect (similar words appearing near each other) but does not explain some more conspicuous ones." (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.) I didn't know on what your opinion is based on, why it is not a good explanation or what you mean with conspicuous aspects. In such a case it is therefore necessary to ask what you mean or to guess what you could mean. If I ask you multiple times what you mean and all I get is a rephrase of the original statement or even silence this is not a constructive discussion in my eyes. This is especially true if you then write some time later or in another thread that I have failed to address your concerns. With other words, there is nothing wrong with an opinion as long as it is backed up with an argument.
(24-08-2020, 07:09 PM)Torsten Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(24-08-2020, 04:47 PM)Stephen Carlson Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Is there a test that can distinguish meaningless and undecipherable? And if there isn't, what does that mean for us?

No, such a test doesn't exists. It is possible to use a meaningful text as cover text for secret message and it is also possible to use a text which itself is meaningless for the same purpose. There are only tests for estimating the amount of information a given unreadable text can carry.

Right. I'm of the view that if we are unable to distinguish between a meaningless and an undecipherable text, then the meaningfulness of the text is an unnecessary auxiliary hypothesis that ought to be discarded. Even though texts are usually intended to communicate information, an undecipherable text cannot do so. It is in a real sense, a fake text.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10