+- The Voynich Ninja (https://www.voynich.ninja)
+-- Forum: Voynich Research (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-27.html)
+--- Forum: Analysis of the text (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-41.html)
+--- Thread: [split] Verbose cipher? (/thread-3356.html)
RE: [split] Verbose cipher? - geoffreycaveney - 21-09-2020
I would also like to share with the forum two examples of prior efforts of mine to decipher the Voynich ms that incorporated certain elements of a verbose cipher. I never published either one, here or elsewhere, and I now consider them obsolete. They represent efforts prior to my Judaeo-Greek theory that I wrote about extensively on this forum last year. But it may be of interest to some researchers to examine the ways in which I considered analyzing certain combinations of glyphs as a verbose cipher.
The first example was an attempted decryption of the Voynich ms text as Syriac or Aramaic. The only really distinctive verbose cipher elements in it were [ot], [ok], and [eo]. In general, the theory suffered from the same problem of ambiguity as my later Judaeo-Greek theory. In case you are wondering about the motivation for the Syriac letters that I grouped together, they were based on the shapes of the letters in the Syriac script rather than on phonological principles as in the Judaeo-Greek analysis.
The second example was the attempted decryption of the Voynich ms text as Hebrew, the failure of which You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. as a commentary on Hannig's recent Hebrew theory of the Voynich ms. This was an attempt at a more extensive verbose cipher, where almost every correspondence is with a Voynich bigram rather than a single glyph. Note the presence of many of the bigrams in Koen's analysis that created a 3.01 h2 conditional entropy: [ok], [ot], [od], [ol], [or], [al], [ar]. The problem with this theory was not so much ambiguity, but rather the incorrect correspondence of certain key letters in basic words with classical Hebrew spelling, the problematic nature of which a Hebrew scholar pointed out to me, as I described in my post about Hannig's theory cited above.
RE: [split] Verbose cipher? - nickpelling - 21-09-2020
(20-09-2020, 11:36 PM)geoffreycaveney Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I once saw a post on a Voynich researcher's blog where he actually complained about how people making incorrect theories and claims were starting to learn more about the legitimate Voynich research to incorporate it into their theories, thus making them harder to refute!As if it were somehow a bad thing for everyone to learn more about the valid Voynich research.
I believe that was on my Cipher Mysteries blog. I'd still say that things like the Voynich Wikipedia page are far more of a help to nutters forming delusional theories than to anyone actually trying to research the VMs.
A small amount of genuinely good Voynich research comes out each year, but it can be hard to find amidst the overwhelming amount of media clamour around non-solutions and general noise.
RE: [split] Verbose cipher? - geoffreycaveney - 22-09-2020
(21-09-2020, 07:37 PM)nickpelling Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(20-09-2020, 11:36 PM)geoffreycaveney Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I once saw a post on a Voynich researcher's blog where he actually complained about how people making incorrect theories and claims were starting to learn more about the legitimate Voynich research to incorporate it into their theories, thus making them harder to refute!
I believe that was on my Cipher Mysteries blog. I'd still say that things like the Voynich Wikipedia page are far more of a help to nutters forming delusional theories than to anyone actually trying to research the VMs.
The idea that encyclopedias of accurate scientific information should not be freely available to all people, most of whom are paying the taxes that support and fund most of the work of the professional academic researchers, is a quite extraordinary opinion to hold in the 21st century.
Some would say that those who like to go around calling others "nutters" and "delusional" are actually engaging in what psychologists would call "projecting".
RE: [split] Verbose cipher? - nickpelling - 22-09-2020
(22-09-2020, 06:19 PM)geoffreycaveney Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The idea that encyclopedias of accurate scientific information should not be freely available to all people, most of whom are paying the taxes that support and fund most of the work of the professional academic researchers, is a quite extraordinary opinion to hold in the 21st century.
Some would say that those who like to go around calling others "nutters" and "delusional" are actually engaging in what psychologists would call "projecting".
Clearly we find ourselves standing on opposite sides of a very specific chasm here. Good luck with your side.
RE: [split] Verbose cipher? - geoffreycaveney - 22-09-2020
(22-09-2020, 09:43 PM)nickpelling Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Clearly we find ourselves standing on opposite sides of a very specific chasm here. Good luck with your side.
Believe it or not I don't think our approaches are actually as diametrically opposed as you may believe they are. I take the statistical analysis of the Voynich ms text very seriously. I simply believe that there is nothing wrong with making, testing, and discussing hypotheses about specific natural languages in connection with the Voynich ms text and its statistics. Personally I would find the entire discussion very dry and boring if all discussion of possible actual languages were avoided. But maybe that's just a matter of taste.
RE: [split] Verbose cipher? - Mark Knowles - 22-09-2020
(22-09-2020, 06:19 PM)geoffreycaveney Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(21-09-2020, 07:37 PM)nickpelling Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(20-09-2020, 11:36 PM)geoffreycaveney Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I once saw a post on a Voynich researcher's blog where he actually complained about how people making incorrect theories and claims were starting to learn more about the legitimate Voynich research to incorporate it into their theories, thus making them harder to refute!
I believe that was on my Cipher Mysteries blog. I'd still say that things like the Voynich Wikipedia page are far more of a help to nutters forming delusional theories than to anyone actually trying to research the VMs.
The idea that encyclopedias of accurate scientific information should not be freely available to all people, most of whom are paying the taxes that support and fund most of the work of the professional academic researchers, is a quite extraordinary opinion to hold in the 21st century.
Some would say that those who like to go around calling others "nutters" and "delusional" are actually engaging in what psychologists would call "projecting".
I don't think Nick said that wikipedia shouldn't exist. Though I think it is fair to say that the limited nature of the information on wikipedia is insufficient in and of itself to carry out serious Voynich research.
I agree that we all have to look at ourselves well before labeling other researchers to see if we are guilty of the things we accuse them of. I think introspection has its benefits as long as one doesn't overdo it and become neurotic. Nevertheless still it is fair to describe some researchers as "delusional" and "nutters"; for example anyone who thinks that aliens had anything to do with the writing of the Voynich I think one can say fits into that category. To some extent it can be argued that we all lie on a spectrum when it comes to those categories.
One can level criticisms against Nick, as can be leveled at any of us, but "delusional" and "nutter" I can't say ever entered my mind.
RE: [split] Verbose cipher? - nickpelling - 22-09-2020
Or we are aiming in quite opposite directions, and our two approaches are inherently incommensurate.
I'm not sure I can eliminate that just yet.
RE: [split] Verbose cipher? - geoffreycaveney - 22-09-2020
(22-09-2020, 10:29 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I don't think Nick said that wikipedia shouldn't exist. Though I think it is fair to say that the limited nature of the information on wikipedia is insufficient in and of itself to carry out serious Voynich research.
I agree that we all have to look at ourselves well before labeling other researchers to see if we are guilty of the things we accuse them of. I think introspection has its benefits as long as one doesn't overdo it and become neurotic. Nevertheless still it is fair to describe some researchers as "delusional" and "nutters"; for example anyone who thinks that aliens had anything to do with the writing of the Voynich I think one can say fits into that category. To some extent it can be argued that we all lie on a spectrum when it comes to those categories.
One can level criticisms against Nick, as can be leveled at any of us, but "delusional" and "nutter" I can't say ever entered my mind.
Fair enough. I would be willing to add Nahuatl (Aztec) to aliens as theories that verge on the preposterous. (When I study and research Inuktitut (Inuit) in my other linguistic work, I actually find it a relief that I don't have to think, "Hmm, this pattern reminds me of a pattern in the Voynich script," because I know the idea of the Voynich ms in Inuktitut is absurd.) I don't think Nick is delusional. There are other theories I see posted on this forum and other places that I honestly do find preposterous and absurd, but personally I try to avoid labeling their authors as delusional or other such descriptions.
RE: [split] Verbose cipher? - -JKP- - 22-09-2020
Nick is about as far from delusional as one could get.
He does an incredible amount of background work and has proposed some very good ideas about approaching/attacking the problem of the VMS text.
RE: [split] Verbose cipher? - Mark Knowles - 22-09-2020
I guess it is off topic, but I was reading something recently which highlighted again(I have read other things on the subject before) how delusional human beings as a whole can be. We make decisions subconsciously and then construct a conscious justification for our subconscious decision. And the whole area of cognitive biases makes one doubt human reasoning ability.
We like to think ourselves as rational objective detached thinkers, but we are anything but.
So I have a suspicion that most probably the least delusional or nutty of us is pretty delusional and nutty.