After spending considerable time in Voynich Ninja forum, I have come to a consideration somhow uncomfortable.
I believe that there is considerable obstacle to solving the manuscript, that goes beyond the text itself.
The response to new theories always seems to be immediate scepticism rather than genuine engagement.
Has the community become so attached to the pursuit of the answer,
that it no long wants the answer itself?
"The journey is its own reward!"- but is that sentiment blocking the destination?
I think you’re mistaken. Of course, there are some here who just criticize everything on autopilot, and you can tell they often haven’t even looked into the topic. Those are usually the frustrated ones who are just trying to defend their own half-baked theories.
But most people here are experts—meaning they’ve been working with the VMS for a very long time and have seen many solutions come and go.
With a deeper understanding of the VMS, you can quickly refute a lot of it. Take substitution alphabets, for example. That fundamentally contradicts the structure of the VMS. Then there’s a lot of nonsense—very strange, anachronistic ideas, alien theories, mechanical theories, and so on—that hardly anyone here will take seriously. It’s just too far-fetched.
With the more serious theories, however, it’s a different story. Here, it’s just like in science: a new theory must be able to withstand criticism, because only if it survives that scrutiny will it be taken seriously. It’s actually the job of other experts to try to disprove it. Just like with Stolfi’s Chinese theory. None of this is meant to be mean or negative. It has more to do with the fact that when you develop a theory yourself, you tend to overlook its actual pitfalls.
Well, I think—apart from the first group—that all of this is pretty normal. And you just have to ignore the first group...
And believe me, some people would actually be glad if it were resolved—then they wouldn't have to obsess over it anymore.
Bess, what you describe is a common feeling (and complaint) among solvers. They think their theory is so obviously right, that the only possible reasons why someone might reject it either because they have their own theory, or because they don't want the manuscript to be solved.
Imagine 100 mutually incompatible theories have been proposed on the forum. This means that there are at least 99 wrong theories on the forum, right? That's 99 individuals falsely but unwaveringly convinced that they solved the thing. They all think that they're the remaining one that's right! But even if the right one is out there, this still means that we have to explain to 99 people why their theory doesn't work. Over the years, we have become better at understanding what doesn't work at all, so some theories can be rejected within 5 minutes.
They can't all be simultaneously true, right? This isn't a creative writing class. But if you are one of these 100 people who think they have the solution, just know that there are 99 others who feel just like you about their own solution.
The general consensus, not only on the forum but everywhere people still practice critical thinking, is that the manuscript remains unsolved. Not because we don't want it to be solved, but because the solution hasn't been found yet.
I can guarantee you with complete honestly that I want the manuscript to be solved, because I want to enter a new stage of discovery about it. When a crucial breakthrough is made, it will still take years and years to unravel everything, and every answer will bring forth a dozen new exciting questions. If the manuscript is ever solved, we can start the process of understanding it.
I think there is a conflation of skepticism, which is demanding a high bar of evidence and reasoning to overcome doubt, with close mindedness, which is simply not considering new evidence and reasoning. The purest example of this is "looks-like" theories, where the solver says that the manuscript "looks like" something else, and then is surprised when the rest of us do not simply nod and go, "Of course, why didn't I see that?"
Most solvers do not see it this way, but I firmly believe they would actually find closed mindedness far more comfortable. They would garner far less painful criticism---both in that there would be less of it, and in that it would be easier to write off---if people were not so willing to consider new solutions from a great many angles and compare it to what is already known. This is not to say that I have never seen someone make a motivated point or dismiss an idea too quickly, but I think the experience of solvers is that they get duly and thoroughly considered on this forum and that is what they do not like.
Agree with Koen - this is an incredibly common claim. I've never gone back and counted it, but we have had a lot of solvers say this or a similar phrase when their solution is not accepted. There are minor variants of this claim along the lines of us not wanting it to be language X, and us not wanting it to be solved by someone out of the community or be beaten by them. We had one solver claim we would have nothing to do in our lives without this mystery, and that was why we rejected their obvious breakthrough.
It was also a claim made by people who thought incorrectly that they had solved the Zodiac 340 cypher and couldn't understand that their solution was not accepted. The rationale had to be that their critics didn't want someone else to solve it before them, or they didn't even want it solved at all.
Yet the actual solution was accepted by the Zodiac cypher community quite quickly.
Confirmation bias is a problem for anyone with a theory but it is absolutely gigantic for anyone who thinks they are solving the Voynich (or another famous mystery like the Zodiac cyphers), possibly because there is an emotional investment created for being the one to make the breakthrough. I think it is even worse for the few that get some form of public traction because there's now also a reputation at stake if they're wrong.
Solvers focus on their initial seemingly positive results and soon this builds up to a tower of overwhelming obviousness that they must be onto something. It can't be a coincidence. Everything they see backs this up. It is a genuine baffling mystery to them when their theory or solution is criticized. When you see someone attacking something that is obviously right to you, it's human nature to start wondering about their motivations.
Critics can see how the solution is weighed down by myriad assumptions that have to be true for it to work, and they can see the problems within it. Many are basic and should have been identified by the solver themselves. But I cannot recall any solver proactively listing all the assumptions they are making and the reasons they might be wrong. This is always left to the critics to point out, usually in vain. We had one solver once acknowledge some points but then say something like "but because the solution is right, there must be an explanation out there somewhere, so it really doesn't matter."
There has been well over 100 solutions pre AI. Even though they may be for different languages and systems, they all make the same type of mistakes.
This can be summed up quite simply: The way most solutions have been presented here leaves no room for doubt. One could present a solution something like this: “Here is my solution; I’m putting it up for discussion—it may or may not be correct.” Then one would remain open to constructive criticism, and if it turned out that the solution was wrong, one’s ego wouldn’t be hurt. One would simply be counted among the many flawed solutions. The absolute claim to be right in any case essentially rules out any discussion from the outset. At that point, it’s really just a matter of seeking confirmation. As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, I personally find that uninteresting.
By the way, I see nothing wrong with the saying “The journey is its own reward”. Through my work on the VMS, I’ve learned quite a bit about the (late) Middle Ages. That’s a nice side effect, so to speak.
(26-06-2026, 12:46 PM)tavie Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.We had one solver once acknowledge some points but then say something like "but because the solution is right, there must be an explanation out there somewhere, so it really doesn't matter."
Without really disagreeing, I do think there is sometimes some merit to the point. If the solution were to hold, in some cases it would moot the criticism. It always comes down to how much the solution and the outstanding question actually conflict.
At risk of bringing over what has been a contentious issue on another thread, one thing I give the Chinese Theory some slack on is the criticism that there were few European travelers in East Asia in the early 1400s. I agree a convincing linguistic solution from East Asia would flip that on its head; the journey was feasible and precedented, and such a manuscript would strongly imply some kind of exchange at that time. No one following that thread will be surprised I don't fully discount the criticism either, but I think it is very much a secondary point and has to be made carefully.
Solvers frequently return the favor by not appreciating that those holes are often drawing attention to well-known problems among Voynicheers, not just demanding a thorough explanation for its own sake. (Not that the latter is entirely out of bounds, mind you.) The example of the many solvers who do not address the entropy problem but who nonetheless hold a "translation" moots the issue is apt. They are in for a bad time, not because we don't want a solution or haven't considered alphabetic substitution, but because all of us can write the basic outline of that critique in our sleep before even seeing the particulars of that genre of solution.
(26-06-2026, 03:04 PM)rikforto Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The example of the many solvers who do not address the entropy problem but who nonetheless hold a "translation" moots the issue is apt.
I am not an expert in either translation or linguistic entropy.
Could you please help me understand their relationship, perhaps by providing a link to an article or thesis that discusses the translation of a manuscript, papyrus, or other text that uses entropy to translate it?
(26-06-2026, 03:18 PM)Ruby Novacna Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I am not an expert in either translation or linguistic entropy.
Could you please help me understand their relationship, perhaps by providing a link to an article or thesis that discusses the translation of a manuscript, papyrus, or other text that uses entropy to translate it?
Hi Ruby. I think this question might be better for You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. and why it is specifically important for the Voynich. It's a really good resource that we should promote more on the forum.
(26-06-2026, 03:29 PM)tavie Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Hi Ruby. I think this question might be better for You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and why it is specifically important for the Voynich. It's a really good resource that we should promote more on the forum.
You're absolutely right, Tavie.
My question is simply an expression of my bad mood, tired of reading comments without evidence.
I hope Koen's thread contains enough useful references.