Mark Knowles' theories of pharma and other labels

[Mark Knowles]

It all depends how wide one's definition of cipher is.

It is true that definitions can be wide and so what one means by cipher in this context I suppose can be subject to debate. Of course, Wikipedia, for what it is worth, has a certain amount to say on the subject. I am prepared to work with whatever definition is commonly accepted here.

The Voynich MS is not of the type of cipher that was in use in the early 15th century.

Again we come to the question of what precisely we mean by "the type of cipher". I have said many times that I don't think it is the same as ciphers used in the early 15th century, but I am inclined to the view that it probably has a lot in common with them, whilst still producing a noticeably very different output. So whether the kind of thing I envisage would count as "the type of cipher" I don't know. I think for me important concepts found in early 15th century ciphers like nulls and homophones are relevant. I suggested in the pharma thread that there is a middle ground between all text being meaningless or none of it being so, this was not a possibility mentioned amongst many the possibilities considered. The implication being that some labels are meaningless and others not. A consequence of homophones is that the exact same word with the exact same spelling can actually be written in more than 1 completely different way and this kind of phenomena could explain the difficulty in find certain labels in the accompanying text. This was not a possibility considered amongst a number mentioned in this thread. I have discussed how by using glyph strings/sequences homophones can apply without a large glyph set. There are, I imagine, other different ways in which the broad principles of homophones could be applied.

When Friedman came to the opinion that the Voynich MS is something else than a cipher, he must have had some definition of cipher in mind.

When it comes to Friedman, he was clearly a highly eminent and able cryptographer. However the most able and eminent people, in history, are capable of being wrong. Even Einstein, who is generally the poster boy for intellectual achievement, got some things wrong. I just say this as I feel one should be prepared to have a different opinion to even the most brilliant of thinkers; I don't think that is arrogance, but rather being open to forming one's own intellectual journey. Otherwise we all might as well go home, metaphorically, if we say well person X was much more intelligent than I am, so what hope do I have of making any progress with the Voynich.(I accept that most of us are now at home, for other reasons)

*If* the text is meaningful, then it has clearly been obfuscated in some way. Whether that way could be called a cipher remains to be seen.

I think we can agree on that.

A side point, which has been mentioned before by someone else, though not in the same way as I have thought of, is the possibility that the Voynich may contain a message that has nothing to do with the drawings and so the illustrations are just a cover for the true contents. I really like this idea, although there are a variety of reasons that I really doubt this is the case. However, even though I don't think it is situation I think it worth considering, so I am open to it as conceivable, though unlikely.