[VM DAY] State of the Voynich 2024

[Linguistics of Flowers]

Revision- last posted didn’t answer all questions.
1. 0% (semantic) meaning.
2. 0% simple substitution
3. ? complex cipher.
4. 50% obscured.
5. 0% The images match the text
6. 20% The plants are real plants
7. 50% plants exotic
8. ? The images conceal their true meaning
9. 25% Alchemy
10. ? Astronomy and/or 0% astrology
11. 15% Medicine
12. 0%
13. ?
14. ? read the MS.
15. ?
16. 0% hoax
17. 0% views about the MS

[proto57]

Hi all: Since there was some confusion over the meanings people's answers, I've (like some) added short, clarifying notes- and some links:

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

1) Voynichese text, or part of it, contains (semantic) meaning. 30%

2) The contents have been enciphered with simple substitution or something close to it. 0%, as simple substitution provably can't work

3) The contents have been enciphered using a more complex cipher. 10%

4) The contents have been obscured, but not by means of a cipher. 80% (maybe Steganographic methods were used)

5) The images match the text- 20%- Some seem that You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..

7) The plants are meant to refer to real plants- 30%, roughly, may partly real, or include parts from real plants

8) The majority of the plants is exotic from a European perspective (Asian, African, American...)- You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

9) The images have been made ambiguous or otherwise strange to conceal their true meaning- You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

10) Alchemy is an important part of the MS- 20% - there seem to be a few alchemical-type symbols and illustrations

11) Astronomy and/or astrology are an important part of the MS- 30%, maybe? That is, it is there, but what percentage does it make up of the entire work (which was the way I answered it)

12) Medicine an important part of the MS- 60%? The cut and uncut plants seem to imply this content. Also, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. would explain medicinal content inclusion.

13) The MS is 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)- 80%- Although I believe this was the brainchild of Wilfrid, several others may have offered some elements

14) The MS is authored by a known historical figure. Let's define "known" as "has a Wikipedia entry"- 99%- Wilfrid Voynich

15) One day, we will be able to read the MS- I have no idea, and so, could not offer a percentage for this... Too many variables for me to have a judgment here: Does it have meaning? If so, was it encrypted correctly? Is that encryption the type that is solvable? Will anyone look to the right system? Etc... We still can't read Linear A, nor Rongorongo, and a few others, so, even if it has meaning, it may never be read.

16) There will be a breakthrough in Voynich studies in 2024-2025- 60%- It may not be accepted, as such, though, in my experience. But a tree falls in the forest and all that... and I'm counting the tree.

17) The MS is some kind of hoax (i.e. the main motivation for making it was to deceive others)- 99%- as a You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. In my view, the evidence is overwhelming. But, "never say never", so I left off 1%.

18) Have (part of) your views about the MS changed notably over the last few years? 10%- Small things, for me, over the last 8 or so. Major things before that... which I don't take as "few years". If it were asked, "over the last 12 years", then I would have said 100%.

Thanks for letting me play! Rich.

[Mark Knowles]

Koen: What are you planning on doing with all this data that we have provided you with?

[Koen G]

Koen: What are you planning on doing with all this data that we have provided you with?

I will calculate the average for each question, which I will share during a presentation on VM day. I will also compare these to the last two times we did this poll. See the first post of this thread for more information.

Do let me know if you have ideas for other things I could do with this information.

[Scarecrow]

Koen: What are you planning on doing with all this data that we have provided you with?

I will calculate the average for each question, which I will share during a presentation on VM day. I will also compare these to the last two times we did this poll. See the first post of this thread for more information.

Do let me know if you have ideas for other things I could do with this information.

Could you calculate standard deviation too, to see how we differ?

[MarcoP]

I agree that standard deviation would be interesting. An average of 50 might mean that everyone is unsure, or that there is balance between yes (100) and no (0), and of course intermediate scenarios. Higher standard deviation means more disagreement.

[Koen G]

Excellent idea. It would show how "controversial" a statement is.

[Mark Knowles]

Excellent idea. It would show how "controversial" a statement is.

You could look for clusters. By that I mean clusters where a group of individuals share overall a similar perspective.

One would expect some answers would be correlated or inversely correlated. One would assume that people who put a high percentage for "complex cipher" would naturally put a low percentage for "simple substitution". In some cases answers should add up to 100% or possibly less, but I would think not more.

[asteckley]

Excellent idea. It would show how "controversial" a statement is.

You might want to just show the histogram of responses, at least on some of those questions.
That would display and reveal far more than simply means and standard deviations.

[Koen G]

Stdev is only interesting relative to other questions, like "this was the most controversial statement".
I will also add histograms though, that's a good suggestion.