State of the Voynich 2020

[ReneZ]

This is the best I can do:

6. No
7. No
10. Yes
11. No
14. Yes
15. Yes

The difficult part is that many questions assume certain answers to earlier questions.

[-JKP-]

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

I had a lot of trouble answering this question:

• Is the MS the creative product of one mind, i.e. an author? (Taking into account the possibility that one or more scribes helped to fashion the physical manuscript)
  

I think it may have been masterminded by one person, but I'm quite sure the VMS wasn't crafted by one person (whoever designed or inscribed the text may not have created the drawings), so it's possible the people involved may have had some say as to how it done or may have made decisions along the way.

[Koen G]

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

Back in 2017 I was very certain of answering NO to that question, now less so. A specific way of thinking seems to permeate the MS. In the end I still answered no, because the evidence points to large involvement of multiple people. There is no reason why a specific way of thinking cannot be shared by multiple people in a joint exercise.

[Stephen Carlson]

These are the questions. I recycled the 2017 list and added one question at the end. Please answer in a numbered list with yes or no:

1. Does the text contain any meaning?
   
2. Has the text been purposefully enciphered to conceal its meaning?
   
3. Do the images match the text?
   
4. Are the plants meant to refer to real plants?
   
5. Is the majority of the plants exotic from a European perspective (Asian, African, American...)?
   
6. Have the images been made ambiguous or otherwise strange to conceal their true meaning?
   
7. Is alchemy an important part of the manuscript?
   
8. Is astronomy and/or astrology an important part of the MS?
   
9. Is medicine an important part of the MS?
   
10. Is the MS the creative product of one mind, i.e. an author? (Taking into account the possibility that one or more scribes helped to fashion the physical manuscript)
    
11. Is the MS authored by a known historical figure?
    
12. Will we ever be able to read the MS?
    
13. Will there be any breakthrough in Voynich studies in 2020?
    
14. Is the MS any kind of hoax?
    
15. Have (part of) your views about the MS changed notably over the last few years?
    

1. No
2. No
3. No
4. No
5. Yes
6. No
7. No
8. No
9. No
10. Yes
11. No
12. No
13. No
14. Yes
15. Yes

[Paris]

1. Yes
   
2. Yes
   
3. No
   
4. Yes
   
5. Yes
   
6. No
   
7. Yes
   
8. No
   
9. No
   
10. Yes
    
11. Yes
    
12. Yes
    
13. No
    
14. No
    
15. Yes
    

[Koen G]

14. Yes

That's an interesting answer... You think the MS is a kind of hoax?

[ReneZ]

14. Yes

That's an interesting answer... You think the MS is a kind of hoax?

A very old one. With hoax I mean: "some intention to deceive".

[Antonio García Jiménez]

1. Does the text contain any meaning?      Yes, a meaning weird for us, XXI century people 
   
   
   
2. Has the text been purposefully enciphered to conceal its meaning?     No; on the contrary, its purpose is universal
   
   
   
3. Do the images match the text?     Yes, of course
   
   
   
4. Are the plants meant to refer to real plants?   No, in general
   
   
   
5. Is the majority of the plants exotic from a European perspective (Asian, African, American...)?  No. They are a product of the    
   imagination
   
6. Have the images been made ambiguous or otherwise strange to conceal their true meaning?  No
   
   
   
7. Is alchemy an important part of the manuscript?  No
   
   
   
8. Is astronomy and/or astrology an important part of the MS?  Yes, it is the main subject of the VM. A kind of astronomical tables
   
   
   
9. Is medicine an important part of the MS?   No
   
   
   
10. Is the MS the creative product of one mind, i.e. an author? (Taking into account the possibility that one or more scribes helped to fashion the physical manuscript). Yes
    
    
    
11. Is the MS authored by a known historical figure?   No
    
    
    
12. Will we ever be able to read the MS?       Yes, not to read but to understand
    
    
    
13. Will there be any breakthrough in Voynich studies in 2020?     I don't know
    
    
    
14. Is the MS any kind of hoax?   No, no way. To think that is to assume that we are unable to understand the medieval mentality
    
    
15. Have (part of) your views about the MS changed notably over the last few years?   No. I still think the same
    

[Koen G]

A very old one. With hoax I mean: "some intention to deceive".

It's an interesting philosophical question to think about what a "hoax" implies. For example, there must be an intended audience who will somehow perceive the artifact as something it is not. Without an audience I would rather call it a creative exercise (in hypothetical deception). For example, if someone applied the techniques used in the VM to a private notebook I would not call this a hoax but rather an obscured notebook.

(I'm not saying that you therefore believe x or y, I had just never pondered the implications of "a hoax").

[-JKP-]

Yes, there can be intent to obscure without intent to deceive.

For example, we obscure passwords for personal protection, security, but it's not to deceive people, but rather to deter them.