+- The Voynich Ninja (https://www.voynich.ninja)
+-- Forum: Voynich Research (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-27.html)
+--- Forum: Voynich Talk (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-6.html)
+--- Thread: How much work to write an enciphered manuscript v one with complex meaningless text? (/thread-2922.html)
Pages:
1
2
RE: How much work to write an enciphered manuscript v one with complex meaningless text? - Mark Knowles - 11-09-2019
(11-09-2019, 01:01 PM)MarcoP Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The subject seems to me so simple that I see no possibility of confusion.
I wrote that copying a text with a simple cipher and writing nonsense require the same amount of effort: basically the manual effort of materially putting the characters on the sheet using pen and quill. Anton added the scenario in which you create meaningful content: this requires a mental effort that is not needed in the other two cases.
In other words:
1) Write a page of meaningless characters: let's say about one hour.
2) Copy one page with a simple cipher: same as above (about one hour). You need to familiarize with the cipher, but we are discussing writing a whole manuscript, so the overhead is negligible.
3) Write a page of meaningful text: the minimum is as above (about one hour) if you write whatever comes to mind; but this can take much longer, possibly days, if the text is highly complex and original.
As RobGea wrote You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., the difference between (1) and (2) is that if the text is meaningless it cannot be deciphered.
If you want a text that cannot be deciphered, (1) is your best option. That is what Kelley (in particular with his first language) and Serafini did.
If you want to convey a message, (2) makes sense, if some privacy or display of cryptographic skill is a concern (as in Fontana's case); whenever there are no such concerns, plain text is used.
Yes, that is what I thought you were saying.
RE: How much work to write an enciphered manuscript v one with complex meaningless text? - Mark Knowles - 11-09-2019
(11-09-2019, 01:01 PM)MarcoP Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The subject seems to me so simple that I see no possibility of confusion.
I wrote that copying a text with a simple cipher and writing nonsense require the same amount of effort: basically the manual effort of materially putting the characters on the sheet using pen and quill. Anton added the scenario in which you create meaningful content: this requires a mental effort that is not needed in the other two cases.
In other words:
1) Write a page of meaningless characters: let's say about one hour.
2) Copy one page with a simple cipher: same as above (about one hour). You need to familiarize with the cipher, but we are discussing writing a whole manuscript, so the overhead is negligible.
3) Write a page of meaningful text: the minimum is as above (about one hour) if you write whatever comes to mind; but this can take much longer, possibly days, if the text is highly complex and original.
As RobGea wrote You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., the difference between (1) and (2) is that if the text is meaningless it cannot be deciphered.
If you want a text that cannot be deciphered, (1) is your best option. That is what Kelley (in particular with his first language) and Serafini did.
If you want to convey a message, (2) makes sense, if some privacy or display of cryptographic skill is a concern (as in Fontana's case); whenever there are no such concerns, plain text is used.
My question is based on the thought as to whether it makes sense for the author to have consciously produced text which was deliberately totally meaningless or whether he/she could have achieved their same goal by producing an enciphered text copied from elsewhere, if say the manuscript was some kind of hoax.
If it required the same effort, so there was not extra effort involved in producing a meaningless text than a difficult to decipher text, what could be the purpose in producing a specifically meaningless text. If the author used some mechanism like a cardan grille then it may not be much effort to produce meaningless text, but I think the evidence counts against the hypothesis that it was produced by some mechanism of that kind.
RE: How much work to write an enciphered manuscript v one with complex meaningless text? - Torsten - 11-09-2019
(11-09-2019, 04:17 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.My question is based on the thought as to whether it makes sense for the author to have consciously produced text which was deliberately totally meaningless or whether he/she could have achieved their same goal by producing an enciphered text copied from elsewhere, if say the manuscript was some kind of hoax.
If it required the same effort, so there was not extra effort involved in producing a meaningless text than a difficult to decipher text, what could be the purpose in producing a specifically meaningless text. If the author used some mechanism like a cardan grille then it may not be much effort to produce meaningless text, but I think the evidence counts against the hypothesis that it was produced by some mechanism of that kind.
It seems that you assume that writing a meaningless text would result in an unstructured/random text. But this is not the case. It is far from easy if not impossible to avoid any repetitions/patterns. Even if someone writes something meaningful it is possible to detect his style ([font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]see You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.[/font][/font][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]).[/font][/font] In the same way it is far from easy to avoid cribs while encoding a secret message [font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif](see You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.[/font][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif])[/font][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]. [/font]With other words no additional effort is needed to produce a structured meaningless text and a lot of effort is needed to generate an unstructured text of any kind.
You can test it yourself by trying to write some pages full of unstructured meaningless text. There is n[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]o doubt that to invent new text is always harder than to copy text. But to copy text is not the most efficient way to generate text. It is even more efficient to repeat or to vary the same words like in 'qokeedy qokeedy qokeedy qotey qokeey qokeey otedy'.[/font]
This means structure is not enough to decide if a text has meaning or not. Instead it is necessary to look into the details. Moreover, as more structured a text is as more clues to the language, encoding system, or text generation method exists [font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif](see [/font]You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif])[/font][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif].[/font]
RE: How much work to write an enciphered manuscript v one with complex meaningless text? - Mark Knowles - 11-09-2019
(11-09-2019, 09:54 PM)Torsten Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(11-09-2019, 04:17 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.My question is based on the thought as to whether it makes sense for the author to have consciously produced text which was deliberately totally meaningless or whether he/she could have achieved their same goal by producing an enciphered text copied from elsewhere, if say the manuscript was some kind of hoax.
If it required the same effort, so there was not extra effort involved in producing a meaningless text than a difficult to decipher text, what could be the purpose in producing a specifically meaningless text. If the author used some mechanism like a cardan grille then it may not be much effort to produce meaningless text, but I think the evidence counts against the hypothesis that it was produced by some mechanism of that kind.
It seems that you assume that writing a meaningless text would result in an unstructured/random text. But this is not the case. It is far from easy if not impossible to avoid any repetitions/patterns. Even if someone writes something meaningful it is possible to detect his style ([font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]see You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.[/font][/font][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]).[/font][/font] In the same way it is far from easy to avoid cribs while encoding a secret message [font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif](see You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.[/font][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif])[/font][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]. [/font]With other words no additional effort is needed to produce a structured meaningless text and a lot of effort is needed to generate an unstructured text of any kind.
You can test it yourself by trying to write some pages full of unstructured meaningless text. There is n[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]o doubt that to invent new text is always harder than to copy text. But to copy text is not the most efficient way to generate text. It is even more efficient to repeat or to vary the same words like in 'qokeedy qokeedy qokeedy qotey qokeey qokeey otedy'.[/font]
This means structure is not enough to decide if a text has meaning or not. Instead it is necessary to look into the details. Moreover, as more structured a text is as more clues to the language, encoding system, or text generation method exists [font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif](see [/font]You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif])[/font][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif].[/font]
If you want to produce text that looks meaningful, but is in fact meaningless that seems not so easy.(Even if you don't think it looks meaningful, it does to many people.) I think it would be much more difficult to produce the kind of text we see in the Voynich than to copy from another source using a simple substitution cipher. Especially when the Voynich text is not neatly structured. If you are inventing complex structured text whether meaningless or not I would say it is more difficult than to copy text even if one uses an early 15th century diplomatic cipher to encode it. So what is the purpose of deliberately producing meaningless text, if it is more effort? From my point of view as you know it is to mask meaningful text. By mixing the meaningful with meaningless it makes it harder to decide what is what.
Have you conducted an experiment by asking someone unfamiliar with the Voynich to produce a page of meaningless text in the Voynich script without any prompting, but which should look like it could be meaningful? And time how long it takes them and look at the results.
You could then take another person and ask them to copy a page of text using a substitution cipher using the Voynich script and time them.
RE: How much work to write an enciphered manuscript v one with complex meaningless text? - ReneZ - 12-09-2019
How much work was it to write the entire bible, by hand, in an elegant and consistent, yet cramped, script on over 500 folios, while paying attention not to make any mistakes? I don't know the answer, but it has been done thousands of times.
How much work was it to compose and write the 'Liber Floridus'? Here I know the answer: it took 30 years.
How much work was it to write the Codex Gigas? We just learned that it can hardly be read without laying on the book, and this would have been worse for the person(s) who wrote it.
So, it is clearly pointless to base any argument about the Voynich MS on how much work one or the other option would have implied. People in the Middle Ages had a completely different concept of time than us modern people do.
RE: How much work to write an enciphered manuscript v one with complex meaningless text? - Davidsch - 12-09-2019
Apart from the fact, that it is impossible, I still wonder,
what would be the ultimate goal and gratification in trying to prove that the text is meaningless?
RE: How much work to write an enciphered manuscript v one with complex meaningless text? - Mark Knowles - 12-09-2019
(12-09-2019, 12:22 PM)Davidsch Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Apart from the fact, that it is impossible, I still wonder,
what would be the ultimate goal and gratification in trying to prove that the text is meaningless?
If you prove it is meaningless then the question as to why and how the author produced meaningless text. Also then one wonder if the drawings are also meaningless.
So proving it meaningless would open the door to many other fascinating questions. Was it produced to make money as a "hoax"? Who was the author(s) that would make such a manuscript?
RE: How much work to write an enciphered manuscript v one with complex meaningless text? - Mark Knowles - 12-09-2019
(12-09-2019, 09:22 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.How much work was it to write the entire bible, by hand, in an elegant and consistent, yet cramped, script on over 500 folios, while paying attention not to make any mistakes? I don't know the answer, but it has been done thousands of times.
How much work was it to compose and write the 'Liber Floridus'? Here I know the answer: it took 30 years.
How much work was it to write the Codex Gigas? We just learned that it can hardly be read without laying on the book, and this would have been worse for the person(s) who wrote it.
So, it is clearly pointless to base any argument about the Voynich MS on how much work one or the other option would have implied. People in the Middle Ages had a completely different concept of time than us modern people do.
My point really focusses on if I were try to produce a mystery looking "hoax" manuscript for sale, as an example, then what would be the quickest and easiest way of doing that? I question whether producing the complex structured text that we see in the Voynich would be in fact easier than other ways of achieving the same or a similar goal.
RE: How much work to write an enciphered manuscript v one with complex meaningless text? - Davidsch - 13-09-2019
(12-09-2019, 12:33 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(12-09-2019, 12:22 PM)Davidsch Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Apart from the fact, that it is impossible, I still wonder,
what would be the ultimate goal and gratification in trying to prove that the text is meaningless?
If you prove it is meaningless then the question as to why and how the author produced meaningless text. Also then one wonder if the drawings are also meaningless.
So proving it meaningless would open the door to many other fascinating questions. Was it produced to make money as a "hoax"? Who was the author(s) that would make such a manuscript?
That is exactly my (philosophical and logical) point:
if you want to find the reason for the meaningless-ness, then what you are really doing is trying to find the meaning of the manuscript.
No longer can you say: the script is meaningless, if you've once found the reason for the creation or its use.
That is why I am repeating this question over-and-over again.
If the reason for our quest is not finding the use, what is it then? Finding the uselessness?
There exists no such thing. Because that is a contradictio in terminus!!
If you say a given tool A is meaningless. How will you ever be able to prove that?
And on the other hand, perhaps someone will find a new application for that tool,
which proves in the future that the tool is in fact meaningful in the future.
The chance that it was useless in history, has at that moment decreased significantly.
RE: How much work to write an enciphered manuscript v one with complex meaningless text? - Mark Knowles - 13-09-2019
(13-09-2019, 02:14 PM)Davidsch Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(12-09-2019, 12:33 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(12-09-2019, 12:22 PM)Davidsch Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Apart from the fact, that it is impossible, I still wonder,
what would be the ultimate goal and gratification in trying to prove that the text is meaningless?
If you prove it is meaningless then the question as to why and how the author produced meaningless text. Also then one wonder if the drawings are also meaningless.
So proving it meaningless would open the door to many other fascinating questions. Was it produced to make money as a "hoax"? Who was the author(s) that would make such a manuscript?
That is exactly my (philosophical and logical) point:
if you want to find the reason for the meaningless-ness, then what you are really doing is trying to find the meaning of the manuscript.
No longer can you say: the script is meaningless, if you've once found the reason for the creation or its use.
That is why I am repeating this question over-and-over again.
If the reason for our quest is not finding the use, what is it then? Finding the uselessness?
There exists no such thing. Because that is a contradictio in terminus!!
If you say a given tool A is meaningless. How will you ever be able to prove that?
And on the other hand, perhaps someone will find a new application for that tool,
which proves in the future that the tool is in fact meaningful in the future.
The chance that it was useless in history, has at that moment decreased significantly.
I think we are using the word "meaningless" in two different ways. Saying the Voynich text is meaningless is to say there exists or existed no translation of the text into a humanly comprehensible language. This is not to say that the text is purposeless as there must be some reason for its production. However the author may have deliberately or mistakenly produced text which could and can in no way be interpreted as having a meaning i.e. it has always been impossible to read and understand the text. I am a materialist therefore I believe there is a causal process behind any outcome.
Even if the text has no "meaning" we can still study its structure and the process by which it must have been produced.
As I have stated I do not believe the text is meaningless in its entirety.