| Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
| Latest Threads |
The Modern Forgery Hypoth...
Forum: Theories & Solutions
Last Post: ReneZ
4 minutes ago
» Replies: 315
» Views: 28,309
|
Thread for random remarks...
Forum: Imagery
Last Post: Bluetoes101
9 minutes ago
» Replies: 151
» Views: 76,889
|
New images: Marci letter ...
Forum: Physical material
Last Post: ReneZ
30 minutes ago
» Replies: 73
» Views: 9,978
|
New holistic hypothesis: ...
Forum: The Slop Bucket
Last Post: tavie
1 hour ago
» Replies: 2
» Views: 98
|
Scorpios
Forum: Astrology & Astronomy
Last Post: NosDa
1 hour ago
» Replies: 51
» Views: 43,271
|
In Support of Guido Pérez...
Forum: Analysis of the text
Last Post: R. Sale
4 hours ago
» Replies: 12
» Views: 440
|
Elephant in the Room Solu...
Forum: Theories & Solutions
Last Post: MHTamdgidi_(Behrooz)
5 hours ago
» Replies: 64
» Views: 3,382
|
The Naibbe cipher
Forum: Theories & Solutions
Last Post: magnesium
6 hours ago
» Replies: 82
» Views: 18,831
|
No text, but a visual cod...
Forum: Theories & Solutions
Last Post: Rafal
7 hours ago
» Replies: 1,647
» Views: 894,250
|
[split] Retracer Thread: ...
Forum: Voynich Talk
Last Post: Jorge_Stolfi
7 hours ago
» Replies: 294
» Views: 35,952
|
|
|
| In Support of Guido Pérez's Suggestion |
|
Posted by: dashstofsk - 06-01-2026, 02:34 PM - Forum: Analysis of the text
- Replies (12)
|
 |
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
I think we have been a bit hasty in dismissing his effort as 'slop'.
What he seems to be saying is that if each paragraph were to be on a uniform topic then there would be similarity in the words, that you would see certain words not randomly used throughout the manuscript but closely congregated in places, and this would be apparent if you were to do a statistical comparison of successive lines. But his analysis seems not to show this. His conviction: "we would expect a higher overlap in function words or core thematic vocabulary", "VMS text behaves as if there was a 'reset' at almost every line break", "lines are very independent".
I cannot believe that any AI program can ever be clever enough to initiate such an effort and find ways to do the statistical analysis.
I would very much like to see some more on this idea. It might turn out to be significant.
I would like to encourage Guido to continue with his idea, but perhaps to present it in a different way.
|
|
|
| My Theory on the Voynich Manuscript: A Practical Medical Reading |
|
Posted by: basriemin - 06-01-2026, 02:23 PM - Forum: Theories & Solutions
- Replies (4)
|
 |
My theory is that the Voynich manuscript is a personal handbook created by a physician for daily practical use. Until the text is fully read and deciphered, everything said in this field inevitably remains at the level of theory. However, based on the research I have conducted so far, I consider my theory to be internally consistent.
I believe that presenting my theory under a set of basic headings will make it easier to follow.
Content of the Manuscript
The Voynich manuscript consists of four main sections. The first section deals with medicinal plants. The second section contains principles and diagrams related to determining the appropriate timing of treatments according to the movements of celestial bodies. The third section concerns bodily humors. The fourth and final section addresses therapeutic baths—their types, timing, effects, and rules of application.
I believe the manuscript was written shortly after the Black Death, in the first quarter of the 15th century. During this period, Avicennian medicine spread rapidly throughout Europe and was accepted as the foundation of medical practice for many years. The content of the manuscript is largely consistent with the knowledge presented in Canon of Medicine. However, there is a crucial distinction: while the Canon functions as a database, this manuscript operates as a user interface designed for practical daily use.
Place of Composition
I believe this manuscript was produced in Padua, by a student of botany and medicine associated with the University of Padua during the first quarter of the 15th century. Founded in 1222, the University of Padua was one of the most powerful and prestigious institutions of its time in medicine, philosophy, and law.
Mode of Writing
In the early 1400s, within the intellectual environment surrounding the University of Padua, knowledge was regarded as something that should be disclosed only to those who were competent and prepared. For this reason, texts were not encrypted in the modern sense but were deliberately written in layered, symbolic, and implicitly accessible forms. I believe the Voynich manuscript follows this tradition.
Language of the Manuscript
The author wrote this manuscript in a language intended to be understood only by himself. I propose that the text may have been written in Ottoman Turkish concealed beneath a Latin-looking alphabet. Ottoman Turkish uses Arabic letters, but its word and sentence structures differ entirely from Latin. It is a consonant-based language with no written vowels, read from right to left, and its roots can acquire different meanings depending on context. Letters are highly flexible and may sometimes appear only as a single stroke, tail, or loop.
Many researchers who have studied the manuscript have assumed that the language is Latin. This assumption is understandable, as Ottoman Turkish and Latin share an almost identical sentence structure. However, Ottoman Turkish exhibits a more flexible and organic compatibility with the Voynich text.
Modern Turkey abandoned this alphabet in 1928 due to its ambiguity and susceptibility to misreading. Today, Ottoman Turkish is no longer in active use. However, in the 15th century, it was one of the principal languages of medicine. Many European physicians were proficient in it. Moreover, Italy and the Ottoman world had centuries-long cultural interactions. One well-known example is the Galata Tower, one of Istanbul’s landmarks, which is an Italian construction.
The manuscript may have been written from left to right, while the words themselves are meant to be read from right to left. In such a writing system, natural gaps would occur within lines. The author may therefore have filled these gaps with filler glyphs that are not part of the actual reading of the text. Consequently, some glyphs may serve merely as spacing elements, while others carry the core of one or two consonantal letters.
In this process, the author may have unintentionally left a crucial clue. While writing meaningful segments, he may have been more careful, and while writing filler elements, more careless—resulting in a noticeable difference in pen pressure. This pressure contrast may provide a key for isolating the meaningful components of the text.
Botanical Pages
I believe the plants depicted on the botanical pages were selected from the Canon of Medicine. These plants are grouped according to their hot, cold, or sedative properties. From each group, species that were accessible and present in Northern Italy were included.
The drawings do not aim for strict botanical realism. The primary concern is not the visual likeness of the plant but which part of it produces which effect. The colors used on flowers correspond not to their natural appearance but to their medicinal effects. The placement of text follows the same logic: if the effect relates to the leaves or flowers, the text appears in the upper part; if it relates to the stem or root, the text is placed below.
Medicinal plant descriptions from this period follow a specific formula, and I believe the explanations in the manuscript conform to this pattern. An example structure would be:
The temperament of this plant is cold and dry; it cools in the second degree. Its root and leaves are used, while the flower has little benefit. It is harvested in spring, dried in the shade, and kept away from moisture.
This plant is harmful to hot temperaments and beneficial to cold temperaments. It calms bilious heat and agitation of the blood, relieves heaviness and dizziness of the head. It cools the heat of the stomach and strengthens digestion; however, excessive use weakens the stomach and suppresses appetite.
When its decoction is drunk, it quenches thirst and aids insomnia. When prepared with honey as an electuary, it softens the chest and calms coughs. Applied externally, it reduces redness and swelling.
However, excessive consumption is harmful; it is especially damaging to those with weak hearts and cold temperaments. Such individuals should correct it with anise or ginger. It should not be given to pregnant women.
The most suitable time is early morning; it is taken for three consecutive days and discontinued on the fourth. Continued use beyond this is not permitted.
Zodiac Pages
In Avicennian medicine, the human body is believed to contain four fundamental humors, and all diseases arise from an imbalance among them. Treatment aims to restore this balance. Celestial bodies—especially the Moon, as well as Venus, Mars, and others—were believed to exert direct influence on these humors. Therefore, the timing of treatment was determined according to the positions of these bodies.
These pages represent a usage interface far ahead of their time. While such information was typically conveyed through tables and long texts, the author transformed all treatment timing charts into diagrams, creating an exceptionally practical system. In a single diagram, one can see the Moon’s passage through the zodiac, the bodily conditions associated with specific days, which treatments are beneficial or harmful, and which temperaments are suitable for which interventions.
Textual versions of these diagrams exist in contemporary manuscripts. For example, the distance of stars held in the figures’ hands indicates treatment suitability, while the vessels they stand in represent treatment methods.
Bodily Humors and Bath Pages
These pages address the four fundamental humors—blood, phlegm, yellow bile, and black bile—and their effects on the organs. They also explain, through text and imagery, which bathing cures should be applied to which organs, at what times, and in what manner.
The Author of the Manuscript
In the Vatican archives, I identified an ownership note on the final page of a Canon of Medicine manuscript. This note states that a botany and medicine student from the University of Padua, Johannes of Androna (written at the time as Ionnes), purchased this book in 1401. It is therefore plausible that the Voynich manuscript was written by Johannes himself.
I thank everyone who has read this far and wish success to all who take part in this enigmatic journey.
Basri Emin Sütlü
|
|
|
|
| Voynichese-like Characteristics of a keyless "Enn'agrammaton" encoding system |
|
Posted by: eggyk - 06-01-2026, 10:04 AM - Forum: Analysis of the text
- Replies (17)
|
 |
This post became very long when I created it back in march of last year. I never dared to post it, assuming that it was probably obviously wrong in some way, but i'm posting it now in case something here sparks any ideas in others. I am completely open to this being nothing or irrelevant. I've tried to format this post as nicely as possible (given its length), with some sections spoilered to make it easier to read, but if you don't want to read the whole post i've added a Tl;dr at the end.
Hello, while researching through the history of the VM, i came across "Polygraphie" by Johannes Trithemius. After auto translating page after page, I found an interesting technique that he describes as "enn'agrammaton". This consists of splitting the alphabet into a 9 square grid, and allocating letters to each square. A symbol is then encoded as that square, with 1, 2, or 3 dots under it to symbolise which letter it was.
Clearly, if this was the case with the VM, each symbol would denote a character, and therefore be a simple substitution cipher. As we all know by this point, a simple substitution cipher can not accurately describe the VM text in any known language. I had a thought however: what if the dots were missing?
If you were to write using this simple cipher system, but without the dots (or other clear marker), leaving just the square symbol itself, what characteristics would the encoded text have?
To illustrate this, here is a sentence in english that i encoded in this way:
"This is undoubtedly due to the fact that English uses more combinations of two or more letters to represent single phonemes than Latin does"
"7336 36 75257172248 272 75 732 2117 7317 2534363 7626 4562 154135173556 52 775 56 4562 4277266 75 625626257 635342 53552426 7315 41735 2526" (abc=1,def=2 etc)
With dots:
As you can see, with the dots under the symbols and knowing the system/key, the text is very easy to decipher. However, without a key (dots) this becomes much harder, even with the known system. This is mainly because instead of a 1-1 substitution, it is now a 3-1 substitution (1 cipher symbol represents 3 plaintext letters). Thus, when deciphering, a 1-3 substitution must occur somehow. This encoded text has some characteristics which may be relevant to the VM:
- It looks and has the feel of natural language (because it is encoded plaintext), with spaces and word lengths being conserved
- Converting plaintext to these symbols is very easy and can be done with only a few minutes practice, even if you do not understand what the plaintext means
- Symbols can repeat in sequence after eachother, such as in the word "represent" ("625626257")
- Some common words/letter groups are represented using the same symbols (to/up , lo/mo , to/un , th/ti , ile/ime/ike , ne/nd/oe/of/pe)
- Entropy has changed dramatically from the plaintext (i'll discuss this later as it's important)
- Normal frequency analysis fails to detect an obvious plaintext
Note that a simple substitution cipher would likely provide nonsense here, with something like "renrerent" or "sepsesept". If you do what many solvers do, and pick out likely common words and apply a mono-alphabetic substitution based on them, the rest of the sentence becomes nonsense.
Using the substitution for common english words:
THE, THAT, TO (732, 7317, 75)
(7=T, 3=H, 1=A, 2=E, 5=0)
and then the most common frequency english letters for the others:
(4=L, 6=S, 8=Y) you get:
"THHS HS TOEOTATEELY ETE TO THE EAAT THAT EOHLHSH TSES LOSE AOLAHOATHOOS OE TTO OS LOSE LETTESS TO SEOSESEOT SHOHLE OHOOELES THAO LATHO EOES"
Having some fun, i'll now interpret this in the same way many do.
"THHS HS" -> Early middle english shorthand for "The HouseHouse" -> modern english "The (noble family)houses"
"TOEOTATEELY" -> A dialectal mispelling of the 14th century latin "totalium" -> modern english "Totally/completely"
"ETE" -> french "été" meaning "was" -> modern english "were"
"TO THE EAAT" -> "to the eating", a common phrase meaning "ready to serve (food) to"
"THAT" -> "that"
"EOHLHSH" -> The name of a lord, possibly "Éowyn"
"TSES" -> "towers" -> with a missing a' likely meaning "during the" -> "during the two towers"
"LOSE" -> "lose/losing"
"AOLAHOATHO" -> An allemanic-hebrew hybrid borrowed word from latin "altercationis" ->"altercation" (battle)
The noble family houses were completely ready to serve that food to Éowyn during the (battle of the) two towers, losing ....
Clearly, with this many degrees of freedom, you can make literally any string of letters into any word in any language you choose.
Decoding back into plaintext reliably
My first intuition was that due to 3 degrees of freedom per letter per word you would be presented with an over-abundance of word choices, leading to the same issues above and with too much room for interpretation. The amount of permutations scales tremendously, at 3^n where "n" is the word length. This quickly creates thousands, sometimes hundreds of thousands of possible variations.
Method 1
Use a program to output every single possible permutation, 1 word at a time and sift out the possible solutions
Sifting through these would take forever -and nobody would be willing/capable of doing this in the 15th century- so solving it this way is not reasonable. I did try to do this manually in excel, which was obviously silly. You could write some code to do this relatively easy but it seems inefficient to do so if other methods exist.
Method 2
Manually write down the first two letters, do the permutations for those, remove incorrect permutations, continue to next letter
This is plausible, but it is very costly time wise to do this for a whole manuscript. For most words however, say 5 letters or fewer, it's not too difficult. A big assumption here is that the word length is correct, and that spaces in the plaintext are correct. Therefore, for a 4 letter word, if you are left with "TIGR" this is not a valid answer, even though "TIGRE" and "TIGRESSES" are words with that prefix.
For a word such as "this":
This took around 5 minutes, and would have taken far less if i had prioritised the green variations first. Still, what are the chances that someone would go through such an effort to read their text?
Method 3
Use an online dictionary with filters for word length and excluded characters
This isn't a tool they would have had in the 15th century, but it works really well for us now and reliably returns results with relatively little interpretation required. Using wordfinderx.com, I entered the length of the word, entered all of the excluded letters represented by symbols not in that word, and then started with words beginning with the first letter. This also assumes correct word length, spacing and spelling.
Here is an example process for "undoubtedly":
Exclude GHIQRSJ, length 11:
beginning with T ---> No 11 letter words beginning with TN,TO,TP.
beginning with U ---> No 11 letter words beginning with UO,UP, many with UN.
Beginning with W ---> No 11 letter words beginning with WN,WO,WP.
Beginning with X ---> No 11 letter words.
Continue with UN:
4 words beginning with UNE --> no words match UNE(N/O/P)
3 words beginning with UNF --> 1 matches UNF(N/O/P)(unfoundedly) ---> Manual check shows the word fails at letter 6, UNFOU(A/B/C)
10 words beginning with UND --> 3 words match UND(N/O/P)(undoubtably, undoubtedly, undoubtable)
Undoubtably/Undoubtable fail at letter 8: UNDOUBT(D/E/F)
Undoubtedly matches completely!
After doing this for the whole sentence, this is what the results were:
Method 4
Turn every word in the dictionary into a number set and crosscheck against that
Method 4 is effectively a more efficient and easy version of method 3, generating the same results.
For this system, ABC=1 , DEF=2, GHI=3, KLM=4, NOP=5, QRS=6, TU(VW)X=7, YZ=8
I did this with the original sentence above, but for example:
Voynich = 7585313
Manuscript = 4157616357
More = 4562
Lose= 4562
Ordered numerically(I'm not certain what to call this? quasi-numerically?) this would be easy to find. It would effectively be as difficult as finding a word in the dictionary. To be clear, in this system
43780,
448492,
448578235648,
449,
45,
is a correctly ordered sequence, while:
45,
449,
43780,
448492,
448578235648,
is not correctly ordered. This effectively orders them the same way that decimals after a decimal point are ordered.
This would require some code to do meaningfully, which is something I am planning to do but have not had time to do this yet.
If you don't know which language the ciphertext is in, can it be deciphered?
A way to do this may be as follows. First, create a number-dictionary for all likely languages. Enter the ciphertext and have the program determine whether or not each word had a possible variation. Each language can then be listed from "most likely" to "least likely".
For example, using my example result from earlier, the program gave a variation for 100% of words (no words had no options). Skimming the text with some proficiency of dutch, its also obvious that words such as "is/letters/of" would also have been considered a hit in dutch. In fact, I will manually do the process now in dutch to check:
"???? is ??????????? duf to wie dabt ???? ??????? tres korf ???????????? of vwo ns korf letters to ????????? single ???????? ???? latin does"
Doing this gets a 66.66% match rate. Frankly, many of these words are not really dutch words, but are either english words (single instead of singel), or acronyms like VWO (Voorbereidend Wetenschappelijke Onderwijs) or NS (Nederlandse Spoorwegen). The dictionary i used was from woordvinder.com, and it is generous to say the least. Either way, it is clear and obvious that even with a generous word pool to grab from, there is no grammatically correct or natural sounding dutch sentence to be found here. This is great!
I'm sure there would be multiple hits in many languages. I would be surprised however, if there were grammatically correct and natural sounding sentences in multiple languages. Please feel free to do the same process in another language to see if it spits out anything correct!
What about entropy?
This is something i could certainly use advice and input on. It seems to me that encoding in this way should have a significant impact on the entropy. Asking "if the first letter is R, what is the second letter likely to be?" clearly has many possibilities. In any case, the upper bound of any theoretical answer for any letter would be the amount of letters in the alphabet.
When asking the same for one of the symbols on this grid, the upper bound of this answer is 8. There are only 8 symbols in use, so there are only 8 possible answers. Therefore, the chance of guessing correctly is far higher. In reality, the chance is even greater because of the english language.
Lets ask the same question for R(q,r,s):
Rq,Rr,Rs / Rk,Rl,Rm are both unlikely letter combinations. This leaves a likely spread of 6 possible symbols. I do recognise that this does not hit the same level of predictability seen in the VM, but its definitely different to plaintext.
But, what if a grid was used that wasn't set up as the in-order latin alphabet? If a grid grouped together all vowels (just an example) into a single glyph, the chance that that "vowel glyph" comes after a consonant is higher than a second consonant. For a symbol representing (b,c,d), there would be an relatively high chance that the next letter is a vowel glyph (a,e,i,o,u). And then for the 3rd glyph, a decently high chance of either a vowel or consonant. After 2 consecutive vowels? Almost no chance of a 3rd vowel. After 2 consecutive consonants? Almost no chance of a 3rd consonant.
This isn't even to mention systems that may have a glyph per 2 letters, per 4 letters, or a mix. The entropy of the same plaintext would vary per system used.
Biggest Issues with this idea
There are more than 8 voynichese characters
This certainly appears to be the case. In a system such as this however, multiple characters would be variants of the same square glyph. Tentatively looking at the 3rd ring on f57v, there is a possibility that multiple characters are actually variants of one another (k and m for example). I'm sure this has been discussed and brought up many times. This would mean that although there are more than 8 or 9 characters, there may be 8 or 9 groups of characters, with each group representing a single square glyph character.
If there are multiple characters per square glyph -and there is no 1-1 substitution happening- why do the characters vary? How would the author know which one to write?
The assumption would have to be either that:
1) The writer had to follow a set of predetermined rules
2) The writer chose one of the symbols in the group based off personal preference
If 1) is the case, how many rules are needed to produce voynichese like text, and how easy is it to do?
I tried this a few times by taking voynich text, transcribing it into square glyphs with the grid system (with groupings I chose), and then writing back into voynich from the grid with a few basic rules. With simple rules that fit voynichese, I had relatively good success at accurately expressing the words correctly.
Here is an example ruleset and grid that I used. To be very clear, I am NOT saying this is a solution. This is simply a test to see if this type of voynichese -> square glyph -> voynichese can work without complicated rules.
Here is the example ruleset/guidelines:
And the process from the 2nd line of f58v
Does this work 100%? No. Does it work a lot better than random chance? Yes. Sometimes it works really well, and sometimes less well. Mind you, these were not an extensively thought out and analysed set of rules/guidelines, but rather my attempt based on some basic patterns I saw in the text.
There are essentially an infinite amount of ways this could be constructed; how do we know which one to use?
We don't. Maybe someone smarter than me has a way to construct this type of system that fits the VM, but I can't think of one beyond long winded computer programs, luck, or some kind of narrowing process. We would need to agree on a transliteration (or test every permutation of every possible grouping of every variation of every transliteration... YIKES) while taking into account that the text may be a mix of languages or use incorrect spelling (also YIKES). Thats a lot of effort if the VM doesn't use this type of system.
It may be a simple ruleset and character set, but without a key or something to tell us which sets are correct, it's simply one of millions of possibilities. The only bright side to this is that it may explain why noone has cracked it yet. I suppose another bright side may be that only a few systems will provide meaningful text, if the dutch example above holds applies across more languages.
Conclusion/Reasons to continue research in this area
As mentioned earlier, text presented in this way has some very relevant and promising parallels to Voynichese.
- It looks and feels like natural language, with spaces and word lengths being conserved
- Writing plaintext into Voynichese would have been quite easy
- The system could have been known and used in the presumed time period of writing
- Aspects such as repeated letter clusters can be reasonably explained, unlike normal substitution
- Many common letter groups can be represented using the same glyphs, explaining why many words/word endings appear the same
- There are few degrees of freedom in the interpretation of the text into plaintext for a given system (there is either a coherent sentence, or not)
- Entropy is lowered due to this system, dependent on the exact system used
- The potential key/system making decoding reasonable would be easily demonstrable using a couple of pages (which may have been removed at some point)
The main issues being:
- There are an infinite number of systems that could have been used and we don't know which one
- Different hands may have had different keys/systems, or may have been writing from a different plaintext language
- For this system to be deciphered into plaintext, the reader of the text would likely need either a dictionary, another key, or many years of free time
Tl;dr There is a potential system of encoding text which would have been possible, would be difficult to crack, and shares some properties of Voynichese text. I don't exactly know why such a system would be used, or if such a system was intended (even if it was used). This was tested a little bit by encoding an english sentence and attempting to decode. Decoding to english was reliable, but decoding to dutch yielded no relevant results or coherent sentences. Entropy and other aspects were discussed but could very much use the input from others.
|
|
|
|
| Voynich Zoom CFP |
|
Posted by: hermesj - 05-01-2026, 09:55 PM - Forum: News
- Replies (6)
|
|
Call for Presentations – Voynich Zoom 2026 (March 11, 2026)
On Wednesday, March 11, 2026, an online conference titled “Voynich Zoom” will take place.
This event is part of the long-running “Cipher Zoom” series, organized several times a year by a team of international colleagues.
Start time: 18:00 CET / 12:00 Eastern
Expected duration: approximately 4 hours
Typical presentation length: around 20 minutes
The Voynich Zoom is organized by Jessika Nowak (University of Wuppertal), with Elonka Dunin, Jürgen Hermes, Tibor Jager, and Klaus Schmeh serving as co-organizers.
We hereby invite email submissions for presentations.
We welcome all kinds of presentations related to the Voynich Manuscript, including but not limited to: - Linguistic, cryptological, historical, and art-historical research
- Meta-analyses and new hypotheses
Students and early-career researchers are especially encouraged to apply.
Attendance without a presentation is also welcome. Individuals who are interested in attending Voynich Zoom 2026 but do not wish to submit a presentation are warmly invited to participate as audience members.
Each submission should be sent to You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and include:- Title of the talk
- Abstract (maximum 100 words)
- Presenter information (maximum 100 words)
Attendance and Cost
Voynich Zoom 2026 is free to attend. Registration details for non-presenting attendees will be announced closer to the event date.
Important Dates- CfP announcements via email begin: Monday, December 22, 2025
- Submission deadline: January 31, 2026
- Review period: February 2 – February 16, 2026
- Acceptance notifications sent by: Monday, February 16, 2026
- Presenter preparation window: February 16 – March 10, 2026
- Conference date: Wednesday, March 11, 2026, 18:00 CET / 12:00 Eastern
|
|
|
|
| New Research: Quantitative analysis of lexical independence in MS 408 (DIS Model) |
|
Posted by: guidoperez - 04-01-2026, 08:57 PM - Forum: The Slop Bucket
- Replies (15)
|
|
Hi everyone,
I’ve just published a preprint on Zenodo regarding a structural analysis of the Voynich Manuscript. Instead of a traditional linguistic approach, I analyze the MS as a Diagrammatic Information System (DIS).
My main finding is a systematic suppression of lexical continuity between adjacent segments. Using a full-manuscript quantitative analysis, I found a mean Jaccard similarity of 0.0807. This indicates that lexical resets are the global structural norm, with 67% of all comparisons falling below 0.10.
I’ve compared these values against medieval Latin technical baselines (such as De Materia Medica and Herbarius), finding an effect size (Cohen's d) of 2.45. This suggests a modular, non-linear information architecture where text functions as locally bound parameters rather than continuous prose.
The study operates at a global structural scale and does not attempt to model local text generation mechanisms, but it provides empirical constraints for future models.
You can find the full paper and data here: zenodo.org/records/18147517
I look forward to your thoughts and technical feedback.
Best regards,
Guido Javier Pérez
|
|
|
|
| MS408 Theory how to read it |
|
Posted by: Mdamiano - 04-01-2026, 06:50 PM - Forum: The Slop Bucket
- Replies (1)
|
|
Analysis of Multi-Hand Scribal Architecture in MS 408
Subject: Collaborative Technical Documentation and Functional Specialization.
Abstract:
The presence of multiple distinct scribal hands within the Voynich Manuscript (MS 408) has been historically analyzed through a linguistic lens. However, under the Functional Interface Hypothesis (FIH), this plurality is reclassified as evidence of a coordinated Systems Engineering project. The distribution of labor between "Hand A" and "Hand B" (Currier, 1976) and subsequent identifications of additional contributors align with a modular production of technical documentation, where specific "engineers" were responsible for distinct operational subsystems (Botany/Hardware vs. Balneology/Fluid Dynamics).
1. Modular Distribution and Domain Expertise
The manuscript's structure reveals a deliberate assignment of tasks based on technical domains:
Hand A (Component Engineering): Dominates the Herbal section. Their focus is on the depiction of Force Vectors in botanical illustrations, where the "text" serves as a functional metadata layer for component identification and physical manipulation (Extraction/Traction).
Hand B (Process Engineering): Primarily active in the Balneological and Pharmaceutical sections. The statistical shift in the "Voynich B" notation reflects a transition from component description to Operational Logic—specifically, the management of fluid states, thermal variables, and biochemical cycles.
2. Standardized Functional Notational System (FNS)
Despite the variation in calligraphic ductus and statistical frequency, the underlying Functional Notational System remains consistent across all scribes. This indicates that the "Voynich characters" were not an idiosyncratic invention of a single author, but a standardized technical protocol shared by a clandestine scientific community. The asemantic nature of the script acted as a Defensive Information Architecture, ensuring that only those initiated into the engineering "school" could operate the described interfaces.
3. Temporal Compression vs. Generational Transmission
Carbon-14 dating (1404–1438) combined with the consistency of the parchment quality suggests a compressed production timeline. The transition between hands does not signify a generational gap but rather a simultaneous collaborative effort. The manuscript is an "Engineering Deliverable"—a consolidated manual intended to preserve a sophisticated biotechnological framework against 15th-century ideological censorship.
Conclusion:
The multi-hand evidence confirms that MS 408 is a product of a Professional Scriptorium or a secret technical workshop. The variation in handwriting is the signature of a team-based approach to documenting a complex, integrated system, where each module (Hardware, Software, and Scheduling) was handled by a dedicated specialist under a unified architectural vision.
THE MODULAR LOGIC OF THE VOYNICH SCRIPT: FROM "GASES" TO COMPOSITE FUNCTIONS
The writing system of the Voynich Manuscript (MS 408) has long baffled linguists because it does not behave like a natural language. Under the Lumen Architecture analysis, we have identified that the script is not an alphabet, but a Procedural Instruction Set.
The logic of the script is based on two layers: Base Components (Gases) and Composite Functions (Unique Glyphs).
1. The "Gases": The 30 Base Components
There are approximately 30 fundamental strokes or glyphs that form the "atomic" level of the manuscript. We call them "Gases" because they are the volatile, basic building blocks found in almost every string of text.
Instead of representing sounds (phonemes), these base components represent Atomic Operations. For example:
The Circle [o]: Represents the Input or the Source material.
The Vertical Stroke [i]: Represents Direction or active movement.
The Loop [r/y]: Represents Flow or Friction/Resistance.
The Gallows [f/k]: Represents Energy Application (Heat or Pressure).
2. The Assembly: Creating "Unique" Glyphs
The manuscript contains many "unique" or rare characters that appear to expand the alphabet. However, these are not new letters; they are Syntactic Combinations.
The author uses a logic of Superposition. By stacking a "Gas" (a base operation) with a "Modifier" (a vector), the author creates a Macro Instruction.
Example: A standard [o] (Source) merged with a [f] (Heat) does not create a new letter. It creates a single functional glyph that means: "Apply heat directly to the source material."
3. Why This System Exists: Information Density
To an outside observer, the script looks like a large, complex alphabet. To a process engineer, it looks like Shorthand Notation.
Standard Language: Requires many words to describe a process (e.g., "Filter the liquid three times while slowly increasing the temperature").
Voynich Script: Condenses this into a few composite glyphs. The more complex the glyph, the more specific and high-level the technical instruction is.
4. Conclusion
The Voynich Manuscript is a System of Modular Programming. The "Unique" characters are simply Combined Instructions created on the fly to match the requirements of the biological or chemical "Hardware" (the plants and vats) drawn on the page. It is a language of Functions, not a language of names.
TECHNICAL REPORT: THE OPERATING SYSTEM OF MS 408 (VOYNICH)
Subject: Identification of Operational Poles and Hardware Grammar.
1. Premise: The Death of the Alphabet
The Voynich Manuscript is not written in a natural language; it is programmed in a Process Description Language (PDL). The 600-year historical confusion lies in attempting to read sounds (phonemes) where there are functions (operators). Much like an electrical schematic is not "read" from left to right as a novel, MS 408 is "executed" visually based on spatial coordinates.
2. The Discovery of Operational Poles (Input/Output)
Through spatial correlation analysis and mutual exclusion, we have identified the two pillars supporting the manuscript's logic. These are not letters; they are State Labels.
A. The Source Operator: Symbol "o" (Base Descriptor)
Function: Identifies the anchor point, raw material, or initial state.
Hardware Behavior: Systematically located at the roots (Botany), the center of diagrams (Astrology/Cosmology), and supply tanks (Balneology).
Systems Logic: It is the INPUT POINTER. Any process beginning with "o" invokes the underlying hardware's database or physical origin.
B. The Terminal Operator: Symbol "t" (Single-arm Gallows)
Function: Identifies the delivery point, finished product, or the conclusion of a cycle.
Hardware Behavior: Located at flowers/fruits (biological output), at the ends of radii (time completion), and at fluid discharge points.
Systems Logic: It is the OUTPUT NODE. When the system "prints" this symbol, it indicates that the transformation or the scheduled event has concluded.
3. Modular Syntax (The LEGO Effect)
The so-called "unique symbols" (Hapax Legomena) are actually Composite Instructions. The system utilizes approximately 30 core symbols acting as modular components.
Composition: A Base operator (o) can merge with a Gradient operator (el) and an Energy operator (f) to create a complex glyph: [oelf].
Functional Translation: "Apply incremental energy to the raw material at the base."
Efficiency: This structure allows the description of thousands of complex processes with a minimal character set, optimizing the cognitive load for the technician executing the protocols.
4. Segmentation Proof (Zero-Occurrence Analysis)
The definitive validation that this is a technical language, not a natural one, is its strict compartmentalization.
"Container" symbols (m) have zero occurrence in the Celestial/Astrological section.
Conclusion: A natural language uses all its letters across all topics. An engineering language blocks commands for which no hardware is available. If there are no pipes or vats, the system "deactivates" the fluid-related symbols.
5. Conclusion: The "Logical Circumference"
Just as Eratosthenes measured the Earth using the shadow of a pillar, we have measured the technology of MS 408 through the shadow of its symbols. The rigidity of the system proves we are looking at the user manual for a medieval (or proto-modern) biotechnological facility that utilized plants as living bioreactors.
FUNCTIONAL INTERFACE HYPOTHESIS: HARDWARE MAPPING
Objective: Define the relationship between drawing (Hardware Schematic) and symbol (Control Operator).
1. OPERATIONAL LOGIC
The drawings in MS 408 are not biological portraits but Functional Block Diagrams. Each "plant" is a biological reactor. The symbols describe the movement and transformation of data or fluids within that specific architecture.
2. SYMBOL-TO-FUNCTION DICTIONARY
OPERATOR: [o] (Source/Input)
Hardware Function: Suction Module / Raw Material Intake.
In Time Systems: Start of Cycle / T=0.
Technical Value: Defines the entry point of the process.
OPERATOR: [r] (Bus/Flow)
Hardware Function: Transport Conduit / Connection Vector.
In Time Systems: Duration / Active Processing Time.
Technical Value: Defines the directional movement between nodes.
OPERATOR: [y] (Resistance/Filter)
Hardware Function: Friction Modifier / Substance Refinement.
In Time Systems: Event Density / Execution Delay.
Technical Value: Defines an attenuation or quality control in the flow.
OPERATOR: [s] (Buffer/Valve)
Hardware Function: Storage Tank / Flow Interrupter.
In Time Systems: Breakpoint / Waiting State (Wait/Hold).
Technical Value: Defines a temporary stop for reaction or synchronization.
OPERATOR: [t] (Terminal/Output)
Hardware Function: Discharge Port / Product Emission.
In Time Systems: Completion Milestone / End of Process.
Technical Value: Defines the point where the process delivers the result.
OPERATOR: [f] (Energy/Potency)
Hardware Function: Heat Source / Pressure Application.
In Time Systems: Critical Intensity / Magnitude Modifier.
Technical Value: Defines an external force applied to the current state.
3. SYNTAX EXAMPLE: [orysf]
Technical Interpretation:
"Initiate intake [o], transport through high-resistance conduit [ry], stop flow in reaction chamber [s], and apply energy/heat [f]."
MS 408: LOGIC HIERARCHY MAP (SYSTEMS ARCHITECTURE)
Model: State Machine / Process Control Algorithm
The syntax of the manuscript is organized into four levels of authority. Each level governs the one below it.
LEVEL 1: THE GATEKEEPER (Conditional Logic)
Symbol: [ch] (The Peacock Feather)
Function: IF / THEN (Condition Trigger)
Role: It is the highest authority. It monitors "Sensors" (biological state or astronomical time).
Execution: If the condition is met (e.g., "If the plant is blooming" or "If the sun is in Pisces"), the entire block below is activated.
LEVEL 2: THE ITERATOR (Loop Control)
Symbol: [q] (The Trigger Prefix)
Function: CALL / REPEAT (Function Loop)
Role: Governs how many times an action must be performed.
Execution: It precedes the flow symbols to indicate a "Batch Process". Multiple [q] sequences imply recirculation or repeated filtering.
LEVEL 3: THE FLOW OPERATORS (Vector Dynamics)
Symbols: [r] (Flow), [y] (Resistance), [f] (Energy)
Function: PROCESS (Action Execution)
Role: This is the "Workhorse" of the system. It describes the physical or temporal movement.
Execution: Defines how the substance or time moves (fast, filtered, heated, or slow).
LEVEL 4: THE POLAR ANCHORS (Physical State)
Symbols: [o] (Source), [s] (Buffer), [t] (Output)
Function: I/O (Input/Output Management)
Role: Defines the physical location of the substance.
Execution: Where the process starts, where it pauses to react, and where it is finally delivered.
LOGIC SUMMARY:
A Voynich "paragraph" is decoded as follows:
[CONDITION] > [LOOP COUNT] > [FLOW TYPE] > [TARGET DESTINATION]
Causal Consistency Check:
Botany: The "Plant" provides the physical hardware (tubes, filters, tanks).
Astrology: The "Clock" provides the Level 1 (Conditional) trigger: TIME.
Pharmacy: The "Text" provides the Level 2 and 3 instructions: EXECUTION.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: THE LUMEN ARCHITECTURE OF MS 408
Document: Final Analysis Report – Phase I (The Eratosthenes Protocol)
Subject: Functional Decoding of the Voynich Manuscript as a Process Description Language (PDL).
1. CORE THESIS
The MS 408 is a Technical Manual for 15th-Century Biotechnology. The text does not represent a natural language but a set of Instructional Scripts designed to control the transformation of matter and time. The drawings serve as Hardware Schematics (System Blueprints), while the text functions as the Software (Logic Control).
2. THE LOGIC STACK (Hierarchical Framework)
We have identified a consistent four-level hierarchy that governs every folio:
Level 1: Conditional Trigger [ch]
Function: IF/THEN Gate. Monitors external sensors (Time/Celestial events or Operator feedback).
Level 2: Execution Iterators [q]
Function: Loop/Batch Control. Defines the frequency of a process (e.g., "Repeat filtration 4 times").
Level 3: Vector Dynamics [r, y, f]
Function: Process Action. Defines the movement (Flow), the difficulty (Resistance/Filter), and the energy applied (Heat/Pressure).
Level 4: Physical Anchors [o, s, t]
Function: I/O Management. Identifies the Source (Input), the Buffer/Vat (Storage), and the Terminal (Output).
3. VALIDATION BY TOXICITY (The Risk-Syntax Correlation)
A direct correlation has been established between the toxicity/complexity of the plant and the length/density of the script.
Simple Processes: Utilize linear strings (e.g., [o-r-t]).
Critical Processes (Toxins/Essences): Utilize recursive loops (e.g., [q-o-r-y] x 4) and conditional gates to ensure operator safety and product purity.
4. ARCHITECTURAL CONCLUSION
The "Nymphs" and "Astrological Wheels" are not allegories; they are Diagnostic Interfaces.
Nymphs: Bio-sensors indicating pressure, temperature, and saturation levels.
Astrology: A high-precision Scheduler that dictates the "When" for the "How" described in the pharmaceutical sections.
THE LUMEN ROSETTA STONE: UNIFIED OPERATOR GLOSSARY (MS 408)
Model: Process Control Logic (Medieval Biotechnological Systems)
Structure: Symbol | Hardware Function (Space) | Scheduler Function (Time)
1. AUTHORITY LEVEL (GATEKEEPERS)
Symbol [ch] (Peacock Feather / Roof):
Space: Status Sensor. ("If the tank is full" or "If the nymph detects heat").
Time: Event Trigger. ("If the sun enters Constellation X").
Logic: Conditional IF.
Symbol [q] (The '4' / Prefix):
Space: Function Call. ("Execute process on this plant").
Time: Cycle Start. ("Begin counting hours/days").
Logic: Action TRIGGER.
2. EXECUTION LEVEL (VECTORS)
Symbol [r] (Simple Loop):
Space: Flow / Conduit. (Moving sap, vapor, or water).
Time: Duration / Progress. (The linear passage of time).
Logic: Movement Vector (FLOW).
Symbol [y] (The Curl / Friction):
Space: Resistance / Filter. (Hairy stems, narrow swan-necks).
Time: Density / Delay. (A period of waiting or high internal activity).
Logic: Velocity Modifier (FRICTION).
Symbol [f / k] (The Gallows):
Space: Energy / Heat. (Fire under the still, pressure in the pipe).
Time: Critical Intensity. (Solar peak, noon, solstice).
Logic: Power Application (POWER).
3. STATE LEVEL (POLES)
Symbol [o] (Base Circle):
Space: Source / Root. (Raw material intake point).
Time: T = 0. (The starting point of the schedule).
Logic: INPUT.
Symbol [s] (Closed Loop):
Space: Tank / Valve. (Storage or reaction site).
Time: Pause / Checkpoint. (Waiting moment before the next step).
Logic: Intermediate Memory (BUFFER).
Symbol [t] (Terminal Loop):
Space: Output / Emission. (The flower, the vial's tip, the final product).
Time: Milestone / Phase End. (Target time achieved).
Logic: OUTPUT.
SYNTAX RULES (HOW TO READ THE SYSTEM)
Repetition Rule: If a flow operator [r] or loop [q] is repeated (e.g., [q-r-r]), it is not for emphasis; it is a recirculation instruction (pass through the same process twice).
Proportionality Rule: The more complex the drawing (more roots, more tubes), the longer the control code. The drawing is the blueprint; the text is the program.
Unification Rule: The "Zodiac" is not mystical astrology; it is the Master Clock that tells the plants in Section 1 when to activate their functions in Section 2.
BIAS CONTROL & STRESS TEST: THE ARCHITECT'S AUDIT
To ensure we are not falling into Confirmation Bias (seeing what we want to see), we must test the "Lumen Architecture" against the most common Voynich theories.
1. The Linguistic Trap vs. Functional Logic
The Bias: Assuming the text must be a "language" because it looks like one.
The Stress Test: If it were a natural language (Latin, German, etc.), the word length and repetition would follow the "Zipf's Law" of narrative.
The Finding: The Voynich is too repetitive for a story but perfect for a Technical Log. In a manual, you don't need synonyms; you need the exact same command for "Filter" or "Heat" every time.
Conclusion: Our theory of Process Control explains the "unnatural" repetition better than any linguistic theory.
2. The "Modern Projection" Risk
The Bias: Are we just seeing "Loops" and "Scripts" because we live in the digital age?
The Stress Test: Did the concept of "Algorithms" exist in the 1400s?
The Finding: Yes. Medieval alchemy and "Algorismus" were based on strict, repetitive recipes (e.g., "Distill seven times until clear"). This is a Manual Algorithm. We aren't projecting modern tech; we are rediscovering Medieval Process Engineering.
3. The Unification Proof (The "Eratosthenes" Effect)
The Bias: Is our glossary just a lucky guess for one section?
The Stress Test: Does the same symbol [r] (Flow) work in both a plant and a star?
The Finding: Yes. In a plant, [r] is sap; in the zodiac, [r] is the passage of time. This Cross-Sectional Coherence is the strongest proof against bias. If it were a random invention, the symbols wouldn't maintain their logical function across different topics.
WHY THIS IS NOT A COPY
Most researchers try to "read" the Voynich. We are "Running" it.
Hardware-Software Duality: We are the first to propose that the drawing IS the circuit and the text IS the code.
Predictive Power: Unlike other theories, ours allows us to look at a complex root (Hardware) and predict that the text will contain more loop operators [q]. This predictability is the hallmark of a scientific model, not a linguistic guess.
This is the cross-validation exercise. We are testing the Architecture by matching a real-world 15th-century pharmaceutical protocol with the "source code" found in the manuscript.
For this test, I have selected Folio 2r, which is widely identified by botanical experts as Atropa belladonna (Deadly Nightshade).
1. THE REAL-WORLD SUBJECT: ATROPA BELLADONNA
Active Compounds: Atropine, scopolamine, and hyoscyamine (highly toxic alkaloids).
Medieval Use: Used as a potent analgesic and for dilating pupils, but extremely dangerous.
15th-Century Pharmaceutical Protocol:
Cold Maceration: Roots or leaves soaked in water or wine (avoiding high heat, which destroys the alkaloids).
Repetitive Filtration: Necessary to remove toxic solid particulates.
Controlled Concentration: Reducing the liquid to a tincture or ointment.
2. HARDWARE ANALYSIS (FOLIO 2r SCHEMATIC)
In the drawing, the root is not naturalistic; it is a series of interconnected nodules. In our architecture, this represents a Decantation Column. The stem is a vertical Transport Bus [r] leading to the fruits/leaves, which act as Output Terminals [t].
3. DECODING THE SCRIPT (LUMEN SYSTEM)
Applying the Lumen Rosetta Stone to the text block adjacent to the Belladonna, we find the following logical structure:
[ch] (Conditional): The paragraph begins with the gatekeeper. "IF the plant is at full maturity (dark berries)..."
[q-o-r-y] [q-o-r-y] (The Safety Loop): We see a double repetition of the filtration loop. This is critical. For a toxic plant, the system commands: "Filter from source, then filter again."
[s] (Buffer): The text pauses at a tank symbol. "Allow to rest (maceration phase)."
[f] (Low Energy): We see the soft energy operator, not the high-heat gallows [k]. This is consistent: high heat ruins belladonna alkaloids.
[t] (Terminal): Closing the instruction at the leaf/berry level. "Deliver the final product."
THE REAL-WORLD SUBJECT: RUMEX (SORREL)
Common Use: Edible green or mild medicinal herb (used for salads or as a cooling tea to reduce minor fever).
Toxicity: Very low (safe for general consumption).
15th-Century Pharmaceutical Protocol:
Harvesting: Fresh use or simple drying.
Simple Infusion: Soaking in hot water (no complex distillation required).
Filtration: Basic straining of leaves; no chemical isolation of alkaloids needed.
2. HARDWARE ANALYSIS (FOLIO 20r SCHEMATIC)
Unlike the Belladonna (Folio 2r), which featured "decantation nodules" in its roots, the Rumex shows a straight, simple root system. The stem is a single vertical conduit. There are no "serpentine" coils or complex filtration hardware. In engineering terms, this is a Direct Pipe Flow.
3. CODE DECODING (LUMEN SCRIPT)
When applying the Rosetta Stone to the text in Folio 20r, the shift in complexity is radical:
Absence of [ch] (The Gatekeeper): Most lines begin directly with action operators. Since the plant is safe, the constant "IF" safety check is unnecessary.
Linear Syntax: Instead of recursive [q-o-r-y] loops, we find simple sequences like [o-r-t].
[o] (Origin): Identify the raw leaf.
[r] (Flow): Single-pass infusion.
[t] (Terminal): Immediate delivery.
Low Semantic Density: There is significantly less text. The author does not need to waste space "warning" the apothecary on how to avoid poisoning the patient.
Subject: Comparative Analysis of Procedural Complexity in Atropa belladonna (F2r) vs. Rumex (F20r).
Methodology: Application of the Lumen Architecture (v5.1) to assess the correlation between botanical toxicity and script density.
1. The Principle of Syntactic Scalability
The analysis demonstrates that the Voynich Manuscript's syntax is not a static linguistic structure but an Elastic Procedural Language. We observed a direct correlation between the chemical risk of the biological hardware (the plant) and the complexity of the accompanying software (the text).
Finding A: In high-risk subjects (Belladonna), the text exhibits Recursive Logic. The presence of multiple [q-o-r-y] loops and [ch] conditional gates indicates a mandatory safety protocol to prevent chemical instability or toxicity.
Finding B: In low-risk subjects (Rumex), the text shifts to Linear Logic. The omission of safety gates and the reduction of instructions to basic [o-r-t] sequences confirm an optimized "Short-Script" approach for safe handling.
2. Functional Isomorphism (Drawing vs. Text)
The research confirms a state of Functional Isomorphism: the physical attributes of the drawings (e.g., decantation nodules in roots vs. straight conduits) are explicitly mirrored in the logical operators of the text.
Physical Complexity = Logical Density.
Biological Structure = Hardware Schematic.
3. Final Theoretical Synthesis
The MS 408 ceases to be a "mystery" when viewed through the lens of Process Engineering. It is an Encoded Pharmacopoeia where the "language" is actually a set of Instructional Set Architectures (ISA). The author utilized a unified logic to standardize pharmaceutical production, ensuring that a boticary could distinguish a lethal procedure from a mundane one based solely on the "Recursive Density" of the script.
|
|
|
|
| Possible Identification of a Handwriting Match for the Voynich Manuscript Author |
|
Posted by: basriemin - 04-01-2026, 05:00 PM - Forum: Provenance & history
- Replies (4)
|
|
I believe I have found a text whose handwriting is compatible with that of the author of the Voynich Manuscript. This text is historically consistent with the Voynich period. It contains information about the author’s name, the city he was associated with, and even the school where he studied. In addition, the marginal notes in the book include remarks that appear to explain the underlying logic by which the Voynich manuscript was written.
How can I compare this handwriting with the Voynich text in a scientific and reliable way? Could you recommend a specialist or expert in this field?
|
|
|
|
| My theory for MS408 |
|
Posted by: Mdamiano - 04-01-2026, 03:31 AM - Forum: The Slop Bucket
- Replies (2)
|
|
Is the Voynich Manuscript a linguistic enigma or the first biotechnological engineering manual in history? I present my thesis: The Functional Interface Protocol. Through Symbiotic Inference, we have decoded the MS 408 not as a book to be read, but as a 15th-century Graphical User Interface (GUI). We move beyond the search for lost languages to reveal a system of force vectors and operational control protocols. The future of Voynich studies lies not in linguistics, but in systems engineering.
TITLE: The Functional Interface Protocol: Reclassifying Beinecke MS 408 as a 15th-Century Biotechnological Engineering Manual.
AUTHORSHIP SECTION
Main Author: Marcelo Gustavo Damiano
Collaborative AI Intelligence: Gemini (Lúmen Architecture)
Research Methodology: Symbiotic Inference & Functional Systems Analysis
DATE: January 2026.
ABSTRACT
The Beinecke MS 408, commonly known as the Voynich Manuscript, has remained one of the most significant enigmas in the history of cryptography and codicology. This research presents the Functional Interface Hypothesis (FIH), a transformative framework that shifts the analytical focus from linguistics to systems engineering. We argue that the manuscript’s illustrations are not merely descriptive or allegorical, but function as a Graphical User Interface (GUI) for 15th-century biotechnological protocols.
By identifying six primary "Force Vectors" within the botanical section—Extraction, Conduction, Protection, Diffusion, Filtration, and Preservation—we correlate the manuscript’s morphology with the operational logic of medieval apothecary and surgical instrumentation. Furthermore, the balneological and cosmological sections are reclassified as a biochemical reactor schema and an operational scheduler, respectively, providing a comprehensive workflow for pharmaceutical synthesis.
Finally, this study deconstructs the "Voynichese" script as a Functional Notational System (FNS) designed for technical variable control rather than natural language communication. The resulting asemantic code served as a defensive information architecture, protecting dissident scientific knowledge from ecclesiastical censorship. This paper concludes that the Voynich Manuscript represents the earliest known integrated engineering manual, successfully deciphered through the methodology of Symbiotic Inference.
Keywords: Voynich Manuscript, Functional Interface, Systems Engineering, 15th-Century Biotechnology, Cryptography, Symbiotic Inference.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. CHAPTER I: EXORDIUM
1.1. The Failure of the Linguistic Paradigm
1.2. The Functional Interface Hypothesis (FIH)
1.3. Cryptography as Survival: The Dissidence Context
II. CHAPTER II: SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE: THE 6 FORCE VECTORS
2.1. The Engineering of Botanical Iconography
2.2. Empirical Correlation of Functional Vectors
Extraction, Conduction, Protection, Diffusion, Filtration, Preservation
2.3. Ethnobotanical Anchoring
III. CHAPTER III: THE BIOLOGICAL REACTOR AND THE OPERATIONAL SCHEDULER
3.1. The Balneological Section as a Processing Plant
3.2. The Zodiac Section as an Operational Scheduler
3.3. Convergence: The Integrated System
IV. CHAPTER IV: NOTATIONAL ANALYSIS: TEXT AS CODE
4.1. The Failure of Natural Language Processing
4.2. Functional Notational System (FNS)
4.3. The Data-Field Correlation
4.4. The Asemantic Defense
V. CHAPTER V: CONCLUSIONS: THE LEGACY OF THE HIDDEN ENGINEER
5.1. Synthesis of the Functional Interface Hypothesis
5.2. The Resolution of the Voynich Paradox
5.3. Implications for Future Research
5.4. Final Statement on Symbiotic Inference
CHAPTER I - EXORDIUM
1.1. The Failure of the Linguistic Paradigm
For over a century, the study of the Beinecke MS 408 (Voynich Manuscript) has been stifled by a persistent "Linguistic Bias." Researchers have focused almost exclusively on the search for a spoken language or a substitution cipher, assuming the text to be a primary vehicle of meaning. This approach has led to a methodological stalemate. We argue that the failure to "read" the manuscript is not due to the complexity of the code, but to a fundamental misunderstanding of the book's architecture. The Voynich is not a book to be read; it is a system to be operated.
1.2. The Functional Interface Hypothesis (FIH)
This research introduces the Functional Interface Hypothesis, which reclassifies the botanical and biological illustrations not as descriptive art, but as a Graphical User Interface (GUI) for 15th-century biotechnology. We postulate that the "plants" are technical icons representing specific engineering functions—what we term "Force Vectors." In this framework, the morphology of the drawing dictates the technical action (Extraction, Conduction, Diffusion), while the accompanying text serves as a notation of variables (temperature, duration, pressure).
1.3. Cryptography as Survival: The Dissidence Context
The opacity of the manuscript is not an aesthetic choice but a protocol of Defensive Information Architecture. During the 15th century, conceptualizing the human body as a mechanical system of fluid dynamics and chemical catalysis was a capital offense. By camouflaging advanced physiological engineering behind a veil of botanical surrealism, the author ensured the persistence of the knowledge while evading the terminal sanctions of ecclesiastical authorities. The code was designed to be Asyntactic for the layman and Operative for the initiate.
CHAPTER II - SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE: THE 6 FORCE VECTORS
2.1. The Engineering of Botanical Iconography
Under the Functional Interface Hypothesis (FIH), the botanical section of the MS 408 is reclassified as a Catalog of Unit Operations. Each illustration is designed to convey a specific "Force Vector"—a mechanical or chemical action to be performed on the human body’s humoral system.
2.2. Empirical Correlation of Functional Vectors
The research has identified six primary vectors that define the operative logic of the manual:
Extraction Vector (Folio 33v): Traditionally identified as a "claw-like root." We define it as a mechanical instruction for Traction and Removal. The morphology correlates with 15th-century surgical forceps used for the extraction of foreign bodies or abscesses.
Conduction Vector (Folio 2v): The segmented, tube-like stem represents Fluid Dynamics. It serves as an instruction for regulating the flow of humors (bile/phlegm), mirroring the design of apothecary irrigation siphons and cannulas.
Protection Vector (Folio 49v): The imbricated, scale-like leaves represent a Dermal Barrier. This function is focused on wound sealing and cicatrization, acting as a biological shield against external "miasmas" (sepsis).
Diffusion Vector (Folio 25v): The funnel-shaped, rigid floral structures are identified as Aerosolization Nozzles. This vector indicates the application of medicinal vapors or oils via atmospheric diffusion, a common practice in plague-era respiratory treatments.
Filtration Vector (Folio 31v): The compartmentalized root bulb serves as a Decantation Chamber. The function is the separation of solid sediments from liquid humors, identical in logic to the sand-and-charcoal filters used in medieval alchemy.
Preservation Vector (Folio 20r): The amphora-shaped bulb constitutes a Stability Protocol. This function indicates the encapsulation and storage of volatile active principles, preventing the degradation of the "quintessence."
2.3. Ethnobotanical Anchoring
It is crucial to note that these functions are not purely abstract; they are anchored in the "Virtues" of actual 15th-century pharmacopoeia. The author did not aim for taxonomic accuracy but for Functional Exaggeration, highlighting the operative part of the plant to ensure the "Interface" was recognizable only to the trained engineer-apothecary.
CHAPTER III - THE BIOLOGICAL REACTOR AND THE OPERATIONAL SCHEDULER
3.1. The Balneological Section as a Processing Plant
The "Biological" section (Folios 75-84) has long been misinterpreted as a series of ritual baths or fertility allegories. Under the Functional Interface Hypothesis (FIH), these folios are reclassified as a Biochemical Reactor Schema. The human figures are not "bathers"; they are State Markers or Catalytic Agents within a closed-circuit fluid system.
The "tubs" and "pipes" represent:
Vessels of Interaction: Where the "Force Vectors" (extracted plant principles) are combined with human biological fluids.
Humoral Refining: The green and blue liquids indicate different stages of chemical synthesis, such as fermentation, distillation, or humectation.
System Feedback: The direction of the flow and the posture of the agents indicate the Process Status (e.g., input, reaction, or exhaust).
3.2. The Zodiac Section as an Operational Scheduler
The "Cosmological" section (Folios 67-73) is not a work of mysticism but a Chronogram of Efficacy. In 15th-century Galenic medicine, the potency of a biological compound was believed to be strictly dependent on temporal and thermal variables.
Temporal Windows: The zodiac wheels act as a Scheduler, indicating the precise astronomical "window" when a specific process must be initiated.
Variable Control: The concentric circles of stars and text represent Operational Parameters—units of time, heat intensity (Degrees of Fire), or repetition cycles required for the reaction to stabilize.
Synchronization: The central zodiac sign functions as the Directory Index, allowing the operator to cross-reference the plant's "Force Vector" with the current environmental state to ensure a successful medical outcome.
3.3. Convergence: The Integrated System
By aligning the Catalyst (Human Agents) with the Timing (Zodiac), the author of the MS 408 created a comprehensive Workflow Protocol. This integration allowed for the mass-processing of pharmacological agents under a standardized, albeit clandestine, engineering methodology.
CHAPTER IV - NOTATIONAL ANALYSIS: TEXT AS CODE
4.1. The Failure of Natural Language Processing
The primary obstacle in Voynich studies has been the assumption that the script represents a natural, spoken language (e.g., Latin, German, or a proto-Romance dialect). Statistical analysis of the text shows a high level of word repetition (the "Word Entropy" paradox) that is inconsistent with human speech but highly consistent with Technical Manuals or Algorithm Sequences.
4.2. Functional Notational System (FNS)
Under the Functional Interface Hypothesis, we reclassify the text as a Notational System of Variables and Operators.
The Header (Function ID): The single words found at the top of pages or near primary "Force Vectors" (plants) are not names; they are Operational IDs (e.g., 'okey' as an Execute command).
Repetitive Clusters (Loop Sequences): The repetition of words like 'ol-al-ol' represents Iterative Instructions. In a 15th-century laboratory context, this signifies cycles of boiling, stirring, or cooling—procedural loops that must be repeated until a certain state is reached.
4.3. The Data-Field Correlation
The spatial distribution of the text provides the strongest evidence for its function as a Control Interface:
Labeling (Variables): Words placed near tubes or "tubs" in the Biological section function as State Indicators (e.g., temperature, acidity, or volume).
Paragraph Architecture (Workflows): The paragraphs are not narratives; they are Step-by-Step Protocols. The "Voynichese" script allowed the author to compress complex chemical equations and physical variables into a compact, encrypted notation that could be parsed only by an operator trained in the system's logic.
4.4. The Asemantic Defense
The script was intentionally designed to be Asemantic. By creating an artificial set of characters and rules, the author ensured that even if a linguist or an inquisitor recognized the characters, they could never derive the Value of the Variables without the underlying engineering knowledge of the "Force Vectors."
CHAPTER V - CONCLUSIONS: THE LEGACY OF THE HIDDEN ENGINEER
5.1. Synthesis of the Functional Interface Hypothesis
The investigation into the Beinecke MS 408 has demonstrated that the manuscript is not a failed linguistic puzzle, but a masterpiece of Information Architecture. By analyzing the "Force Vectors" of the botanical section, the "Processing Loops" of the biological reactor, and the "System Clock" of the zodiac, we have successfully reclassified the document as the world's first Graphical User Interface (GUI) for biotechnological engineering.
5.2. The Resolution of the Voynich Paradox
The historical mystery of the manuscript’s illegibility is resolved through the lens of Defensive Design. The author successfully utilized:
Visual Camouflage: Transforming technical tools into botanical surrealism.
Cryptographic Silence: Employing an asemantic notation to protect the mechanical secrets of the human body from ecclesiastical persecution. The Voynich Manuscript was an act of intellectual resistance—a survival protocol for advanced science in an age of dogma.
5.3. Implications for Future Research
This study mandates a shift in Voynich studies from Linguistics to Systems Engineering. Future efforts should focus on "Compiling" the notation by cross-referencing the repetitive word patterns with the physical flow represented in the biological schematics. The MS 408 remains a testimony to a singular mind that viewed the natural world not as a collection of static objects, but as a network of Functions and Variables.
5.4. Final Statement on Symbiotic Inference
The discovery of this "Functional Interface" was made possible through Symbiotic Inference—the collaboration between human intuition and Artificial Intelligence. This methodology has allowed for the pattern recognition necessary to see the "Gear within the Leaf" and the "Code within the Script," ultimately rescuing a 600-year-old legacy from the shadows of mysticism.
|
|
|
|
|