The Voynich Ninja

I have tried to be very imaginative in my approach to the page whilst at the same time constraining my imagination within the boundaries of the specifics of the page and other documents and architectural and geographic features of the real observed world. I have tried to adhere to a logical deductive framework for inferences when endeavouring to identify features of the page, though I daresay that other people would make the same claim. I don't think I have arrived at the details lightly except possibly in the case of the identification of some of the very smallest of the buildings. I have troubled over certain details. Particularly, I was troubled for some time over the tops of the ciboria which I thought and still think must be crosses, although to me they don't look very much like crosses. When it comes to time spent looking at and thinking about this page I must have spent a lot longer than anyone.

(22-11-2024, 04:23 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.These methodical differences are interesting.

They sure are. What I'm saying is that accounting for all the details doesn't necessarily make a theory any better. If memory serves, Michelle and Keagan account for quite a number of details for the rosettes page, but they think it's a uterus. I'm sure that if they allowed themselves a bit more leeway and studied more gynecological texts, they could eventually link everything on the page to things that have been written in the Middle Ages about the female reproductive system. If eventually they take in more details than you do, does that make them the winner? There surely have to be other criteria.

Another issue is that the more details one forces into one's theory, the more entrenched this theory becomes. It's the confirmation bias the VM so famously inflicts upon people of all levels of intelligence and education. So rather than encouraging people to engage in this activity, I'd rather tell them to be wary.

(22-11-2024, 04:58 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. If memory serves, Michelle and Keagan account for quite a number of details for the rosettes page, but they think it's a uterus. I'm sure that if they allowed themselves a bit more leeway and studied more gynecological texts, they could eventually link everything on the page to things that have been written in the Middle Ages about the female reproductive system. If eventually they take in more details than you do, does that make them the winner? There surely have to be other criteria.

Do you have a link to their rosettes theory?

Other criteria. Yes, indeed. Independent confirmations. Supplementary sources.

Gloriously and magnificently ambiguous as it is, the Nine Rosettes is only one page. How does an explanation of this vast illustration explain any other parts of the VMs? Do other parts of the VMs support the proposed interpretation?

The cosmic comparison, based on the illustrations from BNF Fr 565 and Harley 334, shows that the use of a highly atypical cosmic structure occurred in Paris in these two historical manuscripts in the early to mid-15th C. The VMs cosmos shares the 43 undulations of BNF and the VMs also shares the mermaid plus four companions of Harley.

Behind both the ownership of the BNF and the mythical, ancestral source as Melusine of Luxembourg, there is a Valois connection. There was a Valois connection to Christine de Pizan. There is a Valois connection to the Order of the Golden Fleece. There is a Valois connection to the image of the Agnus Dei found in BNF Fr. 13096. It appears that the VMs artist was able to incorporate these Valois connections into certain VMs illustrations. These separate investigations have revealed the extent of the artist's knowledge of this one historical aspect.

(22-11-2024, 04:58 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(22-11-2024, 04:23 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.These methodical differences are interesting.

They sure are.

Yes, I increasingly think these methodological questions need to be fundamentally discussed. It seems that such diverse theories of this page potentially reflect a real problem with the approach to Voynich research. I wonder what philosophers of the study of history have written on this subject.

(22-11-2024, 04:58 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.What I'm saying is that accounting for all the details doesn't necessarily make a theory any better.

I think the word "accounting" is relevant here. It is true that I could randomly select a detail on the page and then randomly attach an associated term from the encyclopedia to it as the explanation of that detail. Clearly, that is a terrible basis for any theory as it is random and arbitrary. However, that could be viewed as "accounting" for that detail. Whether "accounting" is the same as "explaining" in a logically consistent way is relevant. So I guess what is entailed in the "accounting" process is relevant. One could argue that explaining all the details does make a theory better.

(22-11-2024, 04:58 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(22-11-2024, 04:23 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.These methodical differences are interesting.

They sure are. What I'm saying is that accounting for all the details doesn't necessarily make a theory any better.

I personally think detail is key. How much explicative power does a theory have? The more details it can explain the stronger the theory.

I can speculate that the page represents the cosmos and the central rosette represents Saturn. But if when asked to explain other details I say that I cannot then the explicative power of the theory appears poor and really doesn't not leave itself open to challenge as without any detail there is nothing to challenge.

(22-11-2024, 04:58 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Another issue is that the more details one forces into one's theory, the more entrenched this theory becomes.

If one argues that the more details one includes in one's analysis the more that one traps and confines a theory in one line of thought and therefore presumably the more details a theory covers the worse the theory then I feel that is a problematic line of thought.

I feel that one could argue that the least detailed a theory is the better it is. Certainly the less detail it has the less that can be mistaken or wrong within it. A null-theory which explains nothing can't be wrong.

It is true that the more details a theory explains the more scope for error. A theory which explain explains only 1 detail can only have got that 1 detail wrong. Even a very good theory which explains 1000 details may get the explanation of 3 or 4 details wrong.

What I'm saying is that the amount of detail, whether it be great or small, it not necessarily the best metric to judge a theory by. A better question (to which I do not know the answer) is how we can talk about the imagery without too much speculation. Your argument appears to be that a theory becomes stronger if it explains more details, but I would argue that it's too easy to make details fit into one's theory. It all depends on how much speculating and nudging is allowed. If quantity is a reflection of how hard one speculated, the only thing it does is make the theorist more convinced of their own theory.

It would probably be possible to make ChatGPT explain all the details in the rosettes page within a medieval context.

(23-11-2024, 04:34 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.What I'm saying is that the amount of detail, whether it be great or small, it not necessarily the best metric to judge a theory by.

I certainly wouldn't view it as the only metric to judge a theory by. Clearly, the extent to which an explanation of a detail fits consistently and logically with the explanation and identification of the other details identified is important. Merely counting the number of details that a person says that their theory explains and then seeing which person arrives at the largest number is not a good measure. A random assignment of identifications would be in this instance as good or better than any other.

The quality as well as the quantity of the detail identifications is important.

However, I would view the amount of detail that a theory explains as a very important and relevant measure. If one says the rosettes page represents the cosmos, but with theory can explain less than 5% of the detail then one has to question the explicative power of that theory I think.