29-05-2017, 10:17 PM
I think something like auto-copying cannot be proven, and it can only be proven wrong if someone ever manages to "read" the text in a convincing way. So at the moment I must say that it could be right, So to be completely honest, my objections against it are more based on feeling than on evidence, since the evidence does not allow us to push either solution.
A main objection is that it would just be an awful lot of work for nothing. People just don't do this. For a similar reason it cannot be a complex cipher either because it is already the largest known historical "ciphertext" by far.
Anyway, to get back to the topic of natural language, I'm still a bit confused about that term. When people say "it can't be natural language", don't they rather mean "it can't be language that is written in a known, natural way"?
A main objection is that it would just be an awful lot of work for nothing. People just don't do this. For a similar reason it cannot be a complex cipher either because it is already the largest known historical "ciphertext" by far.
Anyway, to get back to the topic of natural language, I'm still a bit confused about that term. When people say "it can't be natural language", don't they rather mean "it can't be language that is written in a known, natural way"?