Syllabification

[Anton]

If you want to dispute this, then please provide examples.

Most basic example which comes into my mind is like this. Let's take a simple plain text:

Code:

this is a cipher message

Represent it in binary form, e.g. we could use ASCII for that purpose:

Code:

01110100 01101000 01101001 01110011 00100000 01101001 01110011 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100011 01101001 01110000 01101000 01100101 01110010

Substitute Latin "o" for zeroes and Latin "l" for units:

Code:

ollloloo ollolooo ollolool olllooll oolooooo ollolool olllooll oolooooo ollooool oolooooo olloooll ollolool ollloooo ollolooo olloolol ollloolo

Since each chunk is 8-bit fixed, let's adopt IPv6-notation-like technique (if you know what I mean) and substitute two or more consecutive "o"'s with an "a" (but this can be done only once in a chunk, to avoid ambiguity!):

Code:

olllola ollola ollolal olllall oola ollolal olllall oola ollal oola ollall ollolal ollla ollola ollalol olllalo

(Hope I did not make a typo anywhere, all this is a bit repetitive )

We now have a look at a "language" that is a bit strange (only three letters), yet quite pronounceable nonetheless (I leave it aside that we did not discuss any objective measures of prononceability).  But in effect it is no language, but a decryptable cipher. Anyone is welcome to apply considerations about pronounceability and Latin character shapes thereto .  By the way, character entropy here would be quite low. And I think there can be observed some curious positional restrictions as well - like all words begin with "o", and "a " is mostly toward the end of the words.

For additional obfuscation, we could even introduce some more spaces according to some rule that will allow to keep the original spaces recoverable.

Which isn't my argument.  I wrote above: Everything about the script suggests that it was intended to emphasize the structure of the text, not obscure it. You responded to that with the non-sequitur about the meaning remaining obscure, and I was just addressing that.

Please note that I did not speak of obscuring structure, but of obscuring the message. You seem to be confusing the two.

Maybe you could elaborate on these "criteria for scientific truth".  Obviously we can't redo the creation of the VMS in a laboratory experiment.  I see no problem using terms like "clear" and "obvious" because in my view that's as good as it can realistically get with historical questions like this.  We can amass all the evidence in the world, but at the end of the day everyone is still free to believe whatever he or she wants.

I briefly touched those criteria above, such as consistency, proof, consistent reproducibility and independent verification. Beliefs are beliefs and knowledge is knowledge. If science were about beliefs, the Earth would have been flat until this very day