The Voynich Ninja

(26-06-2026, 11:59 AM)oshfdk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(26-06-2026, 11:29 AM)Gregor Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.If my interpretation is correct, that turning point is the decoding of the manuscript itself. It is a fact that people have tried to decipher it for centuries, but only now has the possibility of decoding it finally emerged.

Doesn't this mean we can just wait until it's decoded, there is no need to do anything about this in particular? If the information cloud hypothesis is correct and the future is set in stone, I assume the manuscript will be decoded and it cannot be decoded earlier or later than predicted.

Do you think it's possible your own decoding efforts are reflected in the manuscript? Are any images in the manuscript reminiscent of anything or anyone that has anything to do with voynich.ninja?

As a side note, would be interesting to try interpreting the Rosettes as a map of various theories about the Voynich manuscript. Like "the wall of substitution", "Chinese corner", "Bavarian valley", "the mountain of the text is not a text".

1. Even if we assume hypothetically that the future is already fixed, it does not follow that we should simply wait. If the manuscript is destined to be decoded at some point, then the process of reaching that outcome - including our attempts, mistakes, and discoveries - may itself be part of that predetermined history. From this perspective, there is no contradiction between determinism and active research. In other words, if a solution exists, then someone has to work it out rather than simply wait for it.

2. Yes. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

3. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(26-06-2026, 11:29 AM)Gregor Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I am not the one deciding which events are represented.

Well you are, actually. 

(26-06-2026, 12:22 PM)Gregor Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.1. Even if we assume hypothetically that the future is already fixed, it does not follow that we should simply wait. If the manuscript is destined to be decoded at some point, then the process of reaching that outcome - including our attempts, mistakes, and discoveries - may itself be part of that predetermined history. From this perspective, there is no contradiction between determinism and active research. In other words, if a solution exists, then someone has to work it out rather than simply wait for it.

This logic does not follow. The future being fixed has no bearing on how/if a solution will be found. It is just as possible that the future is fixed and we simply have to wait for the answer to arrive. By the way, if the universe is deterministic as you say, did you work out that there are hidden variables? How does quantum uncertainty factor in to this assertion? 

Seperately, since you believe the VMS was written by ...time travellers? seers?, could you explain when the VMS was written, by who, and how they had knowledge of what would happen in the future?

(18-04-2025, 08:33 AM)Gregor Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Below, for a better illustration of the time-historical continuum in a telegraphic shorthand, a summary of the individual illustrations of the Voynich Manuscript (from 1R to 51V).

Did you see any anomalies in chronology as you went? I am not certain the current page order as bound is as originally intended.

Did you see any anomalies in chronology as you went? I am not certain the current page order as bound is as originally intended.
[/quote]

There are many specialists on this forum who are better than me when it comes to chronological anomalies regarding the pages of the VMS – I fully trust their opinions. Let them deal with this topic. I, however, stick to the chronology of historical events, where the arrow of time is the primary and decisive factor for the correctness of my interpretations of the manuscript illustrations.

The only anomaly worth noting is the absence of one page (two folios: 12r and 12v). In my view, what I present below fits perfectly in this place:
12R – missing. 
12V – missing.

These illustrations have been lost, which makes it difficult to deduce what they might have concerned. However, if one follows the chronological-historical continuum as well as logic, I believe they should relate to themes connected with Ancient Greece (if Rome was included, it is impossible to omit such an important civilization), as well as themes connected with the empire of Alexander the Great (if empires are presented below, then this one of the largest should not be omitted).

12R – Ancient Greece. 
12V – Empire of Alexander the Great.

(26-06-2026, 06:00 AM)Gregor Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.who actually wrote "ab ovo" ... It was Jorge Stolfi who used the expression first; I merely referred to his earlier post.

I am jumping into the middle of the conversation and sorry if I missed the joke or proper reference.  But just to clarify, the expression "ab ovo" is not mine.  It refers to the Roman poet Horatio praising Homer for not starting the story of the Trojan War "from the egg", namely from the birth of Helen out of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. that resulted from, ahem, the interaction of Leda and Zeus materialized as a swan.

All the best, --stolfi

(26-06-2026, 07:02 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(26-06-2026, 06:00 AM)Gregor Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.who actually wrote "ab ovo" ... It was Jorge Stolfi who used the expression first; I merely referred to his earlier post.

I am jumping into the middle of the conversation and sorry if I missed the joke or proper reference.  But just to clarify, the expression "ab ovo" is not mine.  It refers to the Roman poet Horatio praising Homer for not starting the story of the Trojan War "from the egg", namely from the birth of Helen out of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. that resulted from, ahem, the interaction of Leda and Zeus materialized as a swan.

All the best, --stolfi

It seems to me that in trying to correct someone else’s statement, you ended up introducing several inaccuracies yourself, including one fairly clear case of overinterpretation.
First, you write that the expression “ab ovo” “refers to Horace.” It does not. In its idiomatic sense, it was popularized by Horace in the Ars Poetica, but the phrase itself is not his invention.

Second, you claim that Horace was “praising Homer.” This is also an oversimplification. Horace presents Homer as a model of epic composition, pointing out that he does not begin his narrative from the furthest origins of the myth. This is not a simple act of praise, but part of a broader discussion on the principles of poetics.

The biggest issue, however, appears later. You write about “the birth of Helen from one of two eggs.” Horace says nothing of the sort. In the original text we find the phrase nec gemino bellum Troianum orditur ab ovo — “he does not begin the Trojan War from the double egg.” There is no mention of Helen, nor of “one of two eggs.” That is your own reconstruction, based on one of several versions of the myth of Leda. You are therefore presenting an interpretative expansion as if it were part of Horace’s text.

Additionally, you omit the word gemino (“double”), which is crucial for understanding the allusion. This may seem like a minor detail, but it is precisely what links the passage to the myth of Leda.
Stylistically, your wording is also questionable. The phrase “interaction between Leda and Zeus” sounds more like a sociological experiment than a mythological narrative, while “Zeus materialized as a swan” is simply unnatural phrasing. In classical mythology, Zeus is said to have taken the form of a swan, not to have been “materialized” as one.

In short: you intended to clarify the etymology of ab ovo, but instead introduced elements that are not present in Horace’s text. A classical philologist would not necessarily accuse you of complete misunderstanding, but they would certainly question both your overinterpretation and several of your formulations. The difference between what Horace actually wrote and what later mythological tradition adds is not a minor detail — it is precisely the core of careful textual interpretation.

(26-06-2026, 07:49 PM)Gregor Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It seems to me that in trying to correct someone else’s statement, you ended up introducing several inaccuracies yourself

Oh my, I did not expect the Spanish Greco-Roman Inquisition!...

Quote:First, you write that the expression “ab ovo” “refers to Horace.” It does not. In its idiomatic sense, it was popularized by Horace in the Ars Poetica, but the phrase itself is not his invention.

Well, when *I* used the expression, *I* was referring to Horace's praise of Homer etc.  

Just curious, who used that expression before Horace?

Quote:Second, you claim that Horace was “praising Homer.” This is also an oversimplification. Horace presents Homer as a model of epic composition, pointing out that he does not begin his narrative from the furthest origins of the myth. This is not a simple act of praise, but part of a broader discussion on the principles of poetics.

This criticism reads like "Booth did not shoot Lincoln. That is an oversimplification.  Booth fired a bullet at Lincoln with a loaded gun in a theater because he wanted to kill him."

Quote:The biggest issue, however, appears later. You write about “the birth of Helen from one of two eggs.” Horace says nothing of the sort. In the original text we find the phrase nec gemino bellum Troianum orditur ab ovo — “he does not begin the Trojan War from the double egg.” There is no mention of Helen, nor of “one of two eggs. That is your own reconstruction, based on one of several versions of the myth of Leda. You are therefore presenting an interpretative expansion as if it were part of Horace’s text. Additionally, you omit the word gemino (“double”), which is crucial for understanding the allusion. This may seem like a minor detail, but it is precisely what links the passage to the myth of Leda.

Well, why did he mention twins and eggs at all in that context?  You admit that he is referring to  the myth of Leda.  Now, what connection is there between that myth and the Trojan war? 

Quote:Stylistically, your wording is also questionable. The phrase “interaction between Leda and Zeus” sounds more like a sociological experiment than a mythological narrative, while “Zeus materialized as a swan” is simply unnatural phrasing. In classical mythology, Zeus is said to have taken the form of a swan, not to have been “materialized” as one.

So you mean that, if Horace were reading this forum, he would not praise my style as a model to be followed?

Quote:In short: you intended to clarify the etymology of ab ovo, but instead introduced elements that are not present in Horace’s text.

Gee, I only intended to clarify where I got the expression "ab ovo" from...

All the best, --stolfi.

I would ask what egg you think Horace is referring to if not Helen's, Gregor, but this seems to me to be a silly argument that you're picking for some reason.  It reads like you asked an LLM to provide you with a criticism of Jorge's post and then copy pasted it, with a different m-dash style from your other posts and all.  

It's too hot where I am to be having arguments like this.  Let's move on from Horace, Homer, Helen, and the egg(s), and get back onto discussing your theory of the manuscript as an odyssey of history. 

Although, I'm wondering now if discussion is running its course and no longer helping.

(26-06-2026, 10:06 PM)tavie Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It reads like you asked an LLM to provide you with a criticism of Jorge's post

If that is the case, I did deserve it.

Forgive me if I already told you this... but I am in an online Sci Fi reading club, whose organizer occasionally writes Sci Fi tales himself.  A while back he announced on the forum a new tale of his own. So I asked ChatGPT to write a negative review of it.  I got a full page of scathing criticisms, covering all aspects of the tale -- boring and un-original plot, non-likable characters, bad grammar, awkward style, etc. etc.  

Detail: the guy had not started to write the tale yet. All he had was the title, "Further Adventures of <Character>".  

All the best, --stolfi

(26-06-2026, 10:06 PM)tavie Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It's too hot where I am to be having arguments like this.

Same, if the robots decide to attack the forum today, we will be defenseless. Does the MS say anything about heat waves?