The Voynich Ninja

(17-04-2024, 04:31 PM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.@Rich

How or what do you even think about the VM text?

A painstakingly developed system or just nonsense.



There are indications of a system which also suggests the language.

I really don't have a firm opinion on this issue of meaning or not. Well maybe slightly swayed toward no meaning.

I think the studies, so far, are inconclusive to resolving this question. But I think that upcoming studies may shed more light on what the structures seen in the Voynich may tell us.

I do think that if it has meaning, it may be encoded in some steganographic system, which would then account... or allow for... the massive repetition we observe, and not rely on the word nor sentence structure. I do not think that it can be simple substitution, because of that repetition: The results would also be so repetitive, and therefore nonsensical (which is why all the "systems" which allow for subjective substitution of characters, and sometimes multiple languages, or pronunciations, all of which "allow" a solution without said repetition).

I don't think it can be any type of transposition, as the observed "word" structure would be broken up.

But I also like the idea of "machine generated" random text, such as that proposed by Gordon Rugg. I also think some sort of numerical code might have been used, such as the Selenus Numerical Cipher (really published by him in 1624, I think it may be a Trimethius cipher?): You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. Such a system would allow for the repetition and the "word" structure.

But one thing to note is a very surprising error made on the part of many of the "new breed" of researchers: Meaning does not mean "genuine". There have been papers, lectures, blogs, and many comments, all which are based on the erroneous misconception that if meaning in the Voynich can be proven, then "therefore" it is genuine. Of course this mistake can be quickly corrected by listing even a handful of forgeries with meaning, such as the Howard Hughes will; the Diary of Hitler; the Protocals of the Elders of Zion; the Autobiography of Shakespeare; the White Salamander letter; the Oath of Freeman... I could go on, and anyone reading this can think of many more cases of this. Oh, the Vinland Map, of course...

And there are fewer cases of meaningless genuine items, but they do exist. And the Voynich, as many wonder, and if genuine, could have gibberish as content, only there to fool some people into thinking the possessor has some arcane and valuable knowledge, that only they can impart.

If was being forced to bet a million dollars on one case or the other, I think I would have to say "no" there is no meaning. But I would immediately break into a panic, because I also think it very possible it does.

TLDR: I don't know, and have no strong opinion either way.

What do you think? And if it does have meaning, what do you think that meaning might be?

Rich.

The question was just for my interest, has nothing to do with your theory. I just wanted to know which opinion you tend to hold.
From my point of view, as I understand it from my work, there is a meaningful text behind it.
The starting point was to determine whether there are basic structures. These exist and also point to the language. I haven't written about this yet, but I will.
Then there is the analysis of the symbols. If there is a high similarity to 3 other symbols without any effort, there is a high probability that there must be more.
I have already written about "twins". Nothing happens from all writers at the same time just like that.
Ergo, yes, there is more to it.

(17-04-2024, 01:37 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(16-04-2024, 02:08 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.My use of assumption is not at all wrong, I am actually quoting you on this. "Assumption" and "combined are your own words, as is the entire explanation I relate. From your page, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. , you wrote,
"The uncertainty in age for each folio is some 50-60 years, and in the case of fol.68 even spans two centuries due to the above-mentioned inversions of the calibration curve. These folios have been bound together into one volume centuries ago, and the book production process is likely to have taken considerably less time than these 50-60 years. Under this assumption, and in particular the obtained result that the dating of the folios is tightly clustered (as shown above), each sheet provides a measurement or observation of the MS creation."

Rich, you are just playing with words, and your text was not a quote of mine.

Well I of course disagree on the first part, but as for the text not being a quote of yours... how would I know that? It is on your website, and I did "quote" your website. That is copied and pasted from your site. It is normal to assume, and is the usual case, that text on someone's site has been entered by themselves. Otherwise, the origin is cited.

But your words, or if you are quoting someone else, it does say "... the book production process is likely to have taken considerably less time than these 50-60 years", then "under this assumption", this range was reduced to the far lower range of 1404-1438. If you disagree with such changes being based on that assumption, and being based on some other assumption or however you would phrase it, then maybe your official page on the subject ought to be changed.

I do have an earlier version of this statement, also from your site, up on my page of Modern Voynich Myths:

"The dating of each folio doesn’t allow a very precise dating of the MS. The uncertainty in age for each folio is some 50-60 years, and in the case of fol.68 even spans two centuries due to the above-mentioned inversions of the calibration curve. The book production process is likely to have taken considerably less time than these 50-60 years. Under the assumptions that:

– The MS was indeed created over a time span not exceeding (e.g.) 10 years
– It was not using parchment that was prepared many years ago

each sheet provides a measurement or ‘observation’ of the MS creation. Since they are likely to be from different animal hides, these are indeed independent observations. Combining these observations leads to a combined un-calibrated age of 1435 ± 26 years (1 sigma).”

Again, I assumed that this was your statement, and not by anyone else. But if it was not yours, then I would be curious by whom it was said? And also, why it was later modified, into the statement I used here, and by whom, if not you? I note the assumption of "The MS as indeed created over a time span not exceeding (e.g.) 10 years" was removed. But here is the thing about that: The removal of that claim is one thing, but the data was, by then, processed, and the timeline shortened. So we already know this 10 year assumption was in effect... I mean, we can't go back and change the reasons we did things in the past. We did them a way for a reason, and changing the report of that cannot change that reason.

(17-04-2024, 01:37 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.This time range of the C-14 samples has nothing to do with the question whether the MS is genuinly old or not.

Then why process this raw data at all, if it makes no difference? There is a lot of effort... this is like a real "hot button issue", obviously. Why? And it of course does not define the Voynich as a forgery in and of itself, but it is a valuable bit of information to know this. It is a "brick in the wall" of the real picture of what the Voynich might be: If it were made from sheets of parchment of varied age, we would want to know why that was done. Furthermore, it should be of great interest to know, even if the Voynich turns out to be genuine: Perhaps, off the top of my head, causing some researcher to limit their search for an origin to those places where scribes might have access to materials half a century apart. Who knows?

But I would suspect the reason this was done, why the processed lower range is the one projected, is exactly because it is a problem. To my knowledge, manuscripts are simply not made this way, from leaves from many ages, over half a century apart. It is common sense to realize it opens the possibility that a forger had access to a varied collection of old blank vellum, and just used that, not caring the age of the bits. And THAT is why this issue is such a hot potato.

But this problem, this issue, is far from alone. There are dozens of such anachronisms and anomalies in the Voynich which are likewise so treated. Always in one direction, of course: 1420 and genuine. And any of the evidence found which does not contradict that verdict is never altered, never questioned.

(17-04-2024, 01:37 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Just to avoid that other readers get confused by this...

The assumption is that the MS was created well within someone's life span, which is completely reasonable, as it is the case for essentially all books that aren't obviously log books. This was COMBINED with the result of the four samples which confirmed that.

But Rene! You just affirmed the one thing I've been pointing out! You are agreeing this was done! You even used the word "assumption" again! No, we cannot make such an "assumption" at all, and no data ought to be manipulated to fit this, or any such assumption.

(17-04-2024, 01:37 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.This assumption was not even made beforehand. It was only made after the result showed that this is clearly what happened.

Well arguably that is even worse. The standards have been altered based on the results... and "no" the results do not show "this is what clearly happened", the results showed a span almost an entire lifetime, arguably more, and then were changed to FIT a lifetime. It is the exact reverse of what you wrote.

(17-04-2024, 01:37 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Now the combining of the four samples can be described in words, not using formulas.

For one folio, the probability that the date is after 1450 may be 1%.
If we just had that one folio, then that would be our uncertainty.
However, we have three more folios, each with a similarly low percentage that the date is after 1450.
This means that we have even greater confidence that the book as a whole is from before 1450.
Given that the 95% range is still about 30 years, which is on a scale of a single person's adult life span, the creation of the MS well within several decades holds.
With respect to the question whether the MS is proven to be genuine, I would add "beyond reasonable doubt". While the forensic evidence is clearly the strongest, there is a lot more than that.

There is far too much to parse in that, but it is irrelevant, moot to the points I made, which you both deny and admit in the same post: Simply, that the actual results are at least 50-60 years apart; but whose range was shortened (by whatever process, as in the one you relate, just above) to 1404-1438, based on the assumption that the Voynich was created in a far shorter time than the test results of 50 to 60 years apart.

This is simple, and all that I have been saying... for years now, and is still not being denied by anything I've read here, nor anywhere else. What this means, how people chose to interpret this, is up to them... as it actually should be.
Rich.

(17-04-2024, 01:37 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.However, we have three more folios, each with a similarly low percentage that the date is after 1450.
This means that we have even greater confidence that the book as a whole is from before 1450.

I've not looked over all the relevant details enough to argue one side of the other of this issue, but there is one minor point is worth mentioning about your comment:

The multiple folios do not really give greater confidence on the date (over a single folio) because they all used the same calibration. And that calibration itself may well be  the largest source of uncertainty in the whole test process.

The calibration used  C-14 levels found in certain tree ring records to infer a conversion to actual dates. (That conversion is also not a proper function, by the way, as there is a bimodal distribution involved -- that is, the same C-14 levels occurred during two different periods in the tree ring data, one of those periods being about 100 years earlier in the early 1300's rather then 1400's. The greater likelihood is the one in the 1400's but the other is not neglible.)

The agreement of the multiple tests DOES increase confidence that all three vellum samples are of the same date as each other, but it does not increase confidence of what date that is. If that assumption that the tree-data is a correct representation is wrong, then so too is the date of all the vellum.

Of course, none of this has any bearing on the issue of when the manuscript was written (and I don't think that has been Rich's point either. I think his point was more in regards to whether the experts did or did not agree with the dates and how the history of their opinions seems to have undergone revision.)

Clearly the C-14 tests give very high confidence that the animals providing the vellum were killed in or around the 15th century. The relevant issue is how late in the game could the vellum have been used in producing the codex.  (So far, I've only seen qualitative arguments one way or the other regarding that. But perhaps others know of some more reliable evidence?)

From reading this thread and the posts in Mark's,  I sometimes get the impression under this theory that Voynich was an incredible forger to have attended to so many details, while also an absolutely dreadful forger (e.g. the art).  Is this theory falsifiable?  Is there anything that would persuade you that it isn't a modern forgery?

(18-04-2024, 12:21 AM)tavie Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Is this theory falsifiable?  Is there anything that would persuade you that it isn't a modern forgery?

That begs the questions "Is there anything that would persuade you that it IS a modern forgery?"
There are as many ways to falsify the modern forgery theory as there are to falsify the genuine medieval manuscript theory.

A clear reference to the manuscript from a pre-19th century source is one obvious possibility that would falsify it.

At this point though, neither theory has been actually falsified or proven.

I've been watching and waiting with interest to see some presentation of evidence that objectively rules out the modern forgery theory.
I just find it interesting that so many candidates for such evidence are taken to be certain while actually relying on assumptions.

Hello Andrew,

the calibration curve comes with its own uncertainty, and that is the main contributor to the overall uncertainty of the result. In fact, already combining just any three of the samples gives essentially the same result as using all four.

Effectively, combining the samples just reduces the uncertainty of the measurements (fractional C14 content), but the uncertainty from the calibration curve is not affected and stays with us. It cannot be, and is not reduced by using more samples.

This curve (and its standard deviation) has been established over decades by the global communicty of radio-carbon centres.
Greg Hodgins used the 2004 issue of the curve. I have also tried using the 2009 and 2013 issues, and the difference was exactly zero. (I found these on the net. I think one can still find them, e.g. here:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. ).

One other possibility why the combination could be invalid is if more than one of the folios are, by chance, from the same skin. At least partially invalid.
However, as I wrote above, using three pages out of four already gives the same result, so that shows that this is in fact not an issue.

Now of course, (and I mentioned this already to Greg Hodgins - and he agreed), there could be other types of systematic errors that are not affected by using several samples. He was reasonably confident in the result, however. Of course he should be. He is working in his own discipline, and has a lot more background knowledge. Anything that I (or anyone else here) could come up with, would already have been well established.

Anyway, to check this out, I ran my own version of the calibration with a scale factor (1.5, 2, 2.5) on the sigma of all the samples.
(I am sure that I wrote this somewhere, but no idea when or where).
The outcome was NOT that the same scale factor applied to the result. Far from it. This is again because the uncertainty is dominated by the uncertainty of the calibration curve.
Effectively, the upper limit hardly changes, and the lower limit would go down by a couple of years, also clearly below 1400. Mainly, the second maximum around 1340 would come back into the 95% range.

Still, batting this back and forth, eh? What are the facts? Firstly, C-14 dating is not an exact science. It has an error range of several decades. Quite significant in human terms.

Secondly, there are the four VMs samples. Given their relative chronological proximity, including the large factor for error, even though this is a C-14 "sweet spot," it is possible that all four parchment samples derive from a single source. 

Alternatively, there may be more than one time for the parchment production. Based on the original dating. the scenario with the greatest effect is to group the three oldest samples together, then look at the date for the newest sample and consider the error range as an indicator of a more recent batch of parchment production. It might not change things that much. What's a couple of decades?

The difference is based on the assumption that all parchment came from a single source, or that there was a second parchment source. Given the error built into the data, it is a situation that cannot be resolved.

(18-04-2024, 12:21 AM)tavie Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.From reading this thread and the posts in Mark's,  I sometimes get the impression under this theory that Voynich was an incredible forger to have attended to so many details, while also an absolutely dreadful forger (e.g. the art).  Is this theory falsifiable?  Is there anything that would persuade you that it isn't a modern forgery?

Hi, Tavie: The idea that Voynich would have to have been an incredible forger does not come from me. I in no way think this is at all necessary. There are so many problems with the Voynich that a better forger would probably not have made. That list is very long, and so I won't list them here. And yes most people think the art sucks, even when they think it real and old. Reasons are given to excuse this poor art, but it is poor. Some have thought it "childlike", in fact Edith Sherwood's theory is based on it being by a young Leonardo. And so on.

Anyway, the theory is certainly falsifiable. As asteckley mentioned, a clear, indisputable reference to the Voynich having existed at some date before it was "discovered" in 1912 would do it, and the further back said reference went, the more convincing. But it has long been noted that the Voynich was invisible to history until the 17th century, and the references used to claim it was being discussed, in the "Carteggio" of Kircher, not only do not come close to describing it, but actually You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. being discussed for various reasons. The You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., and You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (sp?) find by Guzy, likewise, the same.

So the Voynich really has no acceptable provenance, but if any ever turns up, that would do it.

A translation my also resolve the issue, one way or the other, depending on what that translation states. If a forgery, there would be "tells" that would give it away... if flawless perhaps it would be evidence of real.

And perhaps if any of the missing pages are found in a place that they could not have been, unless they were put there in some past age, that might do it. Another thing that would prove genuine is if any element of the ink or paint could be dated. There has been a suggestion, I think by Rene... or I heard it from him... that the faded yellow ink might be organic, and therefore datable by C14. But the quantity may be far too small.

The other way, to falsify genuine the genuine/old theory, has several possibilities: Translation, again, but showing modern content of some sort... really any content past about 1500 might convince many, but if, say, 1600 or later, it would be proof it is a fraud. Of course any historical errors in the text might do it, too, depending on the nature of those. Also, some "confession"... a letter by Wilfrid, or some other person (Winifrid?) giving a reliable account of it being fake (I was offered the opportunity to see a confession letter by Voynich, admitting he created the thing, but I didn't trust them... I think they were grifters and publicity seekers... when I called their bluff, they disappeared into the woodwork).

There are a half dozen other ways I have thought of to prove this, and I am working on a couple, but don't want to "tip my hand" yet.

I'm probably forgetting a bunch of stuff, too.

Rich.

(18-04-2024, 12:35 AM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(18-04-2024, 12:21 AM)tavie Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Is this theory falsifiable?  Is there anything that would persuade you that it isn't a modern forgery?

That begs the questions "Is there anything that would persuade you that it IS a modern forgery?"

There are as many ways to falsify the modern forgery theory as there are to falsify the genuine medieval manuscript theory.



A clear reference to the manuscript from a pre-19th century source is one obvious possibility that would falsify it.
[...]

Sorry, nope, the modern forgery theory could explain that away by claiming either (1) the "pre-19th century source" had also been forged and planted by Voynich, and/or (2) the forgery of the manuscript was inspired by the "pre-19th century source", and/or (3) the description in the "pre-19th century source" is not, in fact, describing the Voynich manuscript. 

In fact, Rich has already essentially played all three of those cards by claiming the Marci letter is a forgery; the manuscript was inspired by Voynich (supposedly, with no evidence to support it) coming across the references in Kircher's carteggio; and that the manuscript does not match the description of the manuscript referenced in the letters to Kircher (despite supposedly inspiring the forgery in the first place).

Note that the C-14 dating could have falsified the authenticity of the manuscript had the vellum clearly post-dated the Marci letter. It didn't. There would have been no hand-waving that away.