15-08-2019, 09:24 AM
(This post was last modified: 15-08-2019, 09:25 AM by davidjackson.)
A codebook cipher that was sufficiently large, with an arbitrarily large number of nulls, would not be detectable. It would also be a null solution as there would be no way to decrypt it. We would thus be unable to prove, or disprove, it. And since no solution would appear we would end up discussing it ad nauseum.
It's this sort of irreducible theory that leads to constant pointless argument, which was my original point.
If we take the position that the Voynich is not intelligible, then it doesn't really matter which unprovable route we take to this position - autocopying, lost cipher, gibberish. They are all paths that lead to the same conclusion, that the Voynich has no meaning that we will ever decipher.
But if we take the counter-position (that the Voynich must have meaning, despite all evidence to the contrary) then automatically we reject all of the above theories and must seek to dismiss them out of hand,
Therefore, the real argument isn't over which route to take, as the variables are so large there will always be a counter-position to take.
The real argument is over whether the Voynich has meaning or not. So far, it doesn't and there is no indication that it ever will have.
But again, since this is unprovable (simply a possibility that grows more likely by the year) the circle continues....
Torstein, I never dismissed your theory. I think it's highly interesting, and have said so before. I don't have a particular theory to push, and if you think that I'm comparing your theory to moon landing hoaxes you're very wrong.
It's this sort of irreducible theory that leads to constant pointless argument, which was my original point.
If we take the position that the Voynich is not intelligible, then it doesn't really matter which unprovable route we take to this position - autocopying, lost cipher, gibberish. They are all paths that lead to the same conclusion, that the Voynich has no meaning that we will ever decipher.
But if we take the counter-position (that the Voynich must have meaning, despite all evidence to the contrary) then automatically we reject all of the above theories and must seek to dismiss them out of hand,
Therefore, the real argument isn't over which route to take, as the variables are so large there will always be a counter-position to take.
The real argument is over whether the Voynich has meaning or not. So far, it doesn't and there is no indication that it ever will have.
But again, since this is unprovable (simply a possibility that grows more likely by the year) the circle continues....
Torstein, I never dismissed your theory. I think it's highly interesting, and have said so before. I don't have a particular theory to push, and if you think that I'm comparing your theory to moon landing hoaxes you're very wrong.