02-03-2016, 08:53 AM
In my opinion the copying hypothesis is very plausible, even if it's difficult to prove conclusively.
I can relate to the approach. It's effective and accessible, it does not require planning, it's organic.
It accounts for some unique features of the text, such as word variability and absence of repeated sequences. It's not incompatible with Zipf's law.
I expect that, over time, this type of text-generation process would converge into a set of rules (e.g. common substitutions), carried out mechanically, resulting in the peculiar combination of structured yet irregular text that we see in the VM.
Unfortunately, it's not a particularly testable theory because it is compatible with many different texts. The key question is, what verifiable features does it predict that we don't yet know about?
I can relate to the approach. It's effective and accessible, it does not require planning, it's organic.
It accounts for some unique features of the text, such as word variability and absence of repeated sequences. It's not incompatible with Zipf's law.
I expect that, over time, this type of text-generation process would converge into a set of rules (e.g. common substitutions), carried out mechanically, resulting in the peculiar combination of structured yet irregular text that we see in the VM.
Unfortunately, it's not a particularly testable theory because it is compatible with many different texts. The key question is, what verifiable features does it predict that we don't yet know about?
![[+]](https://www.voynich.ninja/images/collapse_collapsed.png)