(19-07-2024, 04:15 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I think the issue here is that we are thinking about falsification at different "levels". I certainly agree that specific claims based on your model can be double-checked by people with the necessary skills. If your claim is that you created a system that mimics what a human could do and results in something close to Voynichese text, then both of those can be checked. And certainly the claim about the statistics could be falsified; if someone were to find significant differences, those could be pointed out.
However, if you were to claim "they did actually use a technique similar to this to make the VMS", there is no way that can be falsified or confirmed. The merit of your system is that it shows that it is humanly possible to use a form of "self-citation" to get Voynichese-like text. But I don't see how we could ever come to the conclusion that the MS was indeed created this way.
In short, your algorithm itself can be falsified. But as a Voynich solution, it can't.
It seems that you are the one moving the goalposts by introducing "absolute proof" as your definition of "falsification". First, in my view, the danger of using such a definition is that it allows you to accept hypotheses you favor as plausible and dismiss those you don't like by claiming the "ultimate absolute proof" to convince you is missing. Moreover, can we ever have absolute certainty about anything in the Voynich world?
Second, please note that the title of our paper states, "A
Possible Generating Algorithm of the Voynich Manuscript" [Timm & Schinner 2020]. In other words, we are simply arguing that it is the most plausible explanation known so far. It is possible that someday someone may present an alternative generation method that can also explain all the features of the Voynich text. However, because the Voynich text is highly structured as well as very repetitive, this method would most likely have a lot in common with the self-citation method.
(19-07-2024, 04:15 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.However, if you were to claim "they did actually use a technique similar to this to make the VMS", there is no way that can be falsified or confirmed.
If another source in the archives or elsewhere was located which described a technique similar to Torsten's or something of the kind for writing the Voynich manuscript well then that could serve as a confirmation.
If Torsten or someone else produces a much more precise algorithm that exactly or nearly generates Voynich text that could serve as a confirmation.
If someone deciphers the Voynich then that would certainly be a falsification.
Further research will provide more evidence in support or against Torsten's theory.
I, myself, think Torsten's work is interesting, but I doubt his overall conclusions.
Torsten: for me there is a huge difference between "possible" and "most plausible". There is indeed confusion about where exactly the goal posts are. I think many would agree that your solution is possible, yet few would call it the most plausible. This is an important difference.
Mark: you are right. I guess I was thinking about the situation as it is with our current knowledge.
Numbers.
I've found that can answer almost every "well explain how...." arguments regarding the text.
Lets say I use You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. and say the repeating glyphs are numbers, lets do "daiin" d = 3, I don't have "a", so I'm going to assign it to the first rare glyph "v", which is 5. My theory is that "iin" is "iii" with a flick, so that is 111. 3/5 x 111 = 66.6. I can show evidence from all over the world and throughout history, people writing stuff down to produce the number "666".
It passes the repeatability check and it can't be proven false.
(Just random example. Its not actually a theory I have...)
My two "armchair hobbies" are the VM and Physics/Theoretical Physics. I do think applying basic rules of Physics can be helpful to the VM research.
Measure stuff. Then keep on measuring stuff. Most theories and breakthroughs in Physics come simply by "measuring stuff" until eventually you have to explain what broke. You then build a theory within the confines of the agreed upon rules of Physics and share it with others.
I think that general notion is how progress will be made.
If I put my numbers idea forward for example, people would say "does that work for everything?".. well its an idea we can measure and apply rules to, approve or reject. It is a silly idea, but it is a workable one at least. The issue with a lot of theories is that they can't be measured in any sort of way, so can't ever be a result that can be used.
(19-07-2024, 06:20 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Torsten: for me there is a huge difference between "possible" and "most plausible". There is indeed confusion about where exactly the goal posts are. I think many would agree that your solution is possible, yet few would call it the most plausible. This is an important difference.
Mark: you are right. I guess I was thinking about the situation as it is with our current knowledge.
Koen, do you seriously want to fight about the meaning of my words? First, my statement was the "most plausible explanation known so far". To counter this statement it would be at least necessary to point to another text generation method that is also possible. Until this happens the only known "possible" text generation method automatically also provides the "most plausible explanation known so far." Secondly, you are right to state that many members of this forum didn't like my research results and therefore wouldn't call them plausible. However something isn't true simply because that's what a large number of people believe or not believe [see You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.].
Torsten: There are all sorts of possible methods of text generation such as pick a symbol at random according to probability distribution based on its word position. Is that more plausible than your explanation? Fundamentally, your method it is too vague. If you could produce an algorithm which would exactly generate the Voynich text that would be something else.
I think the implications that the text is meaningless raises all sorts of questions with respect to the plausibility of that conclusion.
Perhaps it would be better not to put the question of whether "the text is meaningless" into an 'all or none' situation. After all, if there are five hands in the VMs, then there are potentially five scribes. Five scribes 'could be' five different authors - each with their own style, plus topical variations.
Some parts may make sense; others may be nonsense. There is the potential for intentional manipulation of text segments based on the use of Stolfi's markers.
R Sale:
I agree.
I have long suggested that some of the text may be meaningless and other parts of the text meaningful.
The problem is how to tell the difference. Author's preselection is like falling of a log. Stolfi's markers in the various, circular text bands are either intentional and significant, or they are decorative. What factors might mark the difference?
My "gut feeling suggestion" would be starting with F15r.
At first you think, they had to move the sectioned text between the plants to fit it in (it doesn't line up at the bottom)
.. but then I think, why did they have to fit it in? There's loads of room left. It might just be that they were making a copy and wanted to keep the text in the same places and messed it up a bit, but if there is sectioned text I think this folio would be a a very good example to start with
My "doing it properly suggestion"
Another way would maybe be trying to plot entropy across pages, obviously scoring each "vord" wouldn't work but maybe there are "hotspots" that repeat across multiple folios in the same places, for example 45 of 50 folios in a row showing very different ratings on line 3, that would be a good candidate