Discussion of "A possible generating algorithm of the Voynich manuscript"

[Torsten]

Now I may have gotten the various ways to modify words wrong, but that can be fixed. A Levenshtein distance of 1 would be created by substituting any symbol of chedy by another one. 

Again, this presents in the order of 100 different possibilities, of which only a small fraction actually exist. So again, the changes are dominated by complicated rules that have been followed throughout the MS, no sign of arbitrariness.

The rules we describe are still different than the rule you are arguing against
1) Replace one or more glyphs by similar ones.
2) Add or remove a prefix
3) Combine two source words to create a new word (see Timm & Schinner 2020, p. 9f).

With other words it is only possible to replace a glyph with a similar one! For instance it is possible to replace [ch] with [sh]. 

Moreover, "the same question about the pair of characters Eva-ch and Eva-sh could be asked about Eva: t and k, about o- an qo- (i.e. word-initial), about l and r. Each of these can be exchanged for each other freely, as if a binary decision is to be taken at each point" (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.).

I also didn't argue that the opposite of random is meaningful. However, the two are mutually exclusive.

On the contrary, a random sequence of characters has a high entropy value whereas as a repetitive sequence of characters has not.

I would argue that the opposite of your proposal (meaningless) is meaningful, and I also stress again that we cannot conclude either way, and the evidence presented is not helping us to decide either way.

As long as you didn't provide any argument this is just an opinion. Instead you should discuss the strength of our reasoning (see also my answers given You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.).

You presented a method to create Voynich look-alike text using a more or less random modification of previous words with small Levenshtein differences.

The modifications are not random and the Levenshtein differences are not always small. Keep in mind that it is possible to combine two source words to generate a new word (see also my answer given You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.).

Anyway, "the proposed text-generation method is not only supported by many details of self-similarities uncovered in the VMS text, and is fully compatible with the historical background, but also even quantitatively reproduces the key statistical properties. In particular, we were able to demonstrate that our sample “facsimile” text fulfills both of Zipf’s laws" (Timm & Schinner 2020, p. 17).

I have presented a method to do the same starting from a meaningful text.

A 1-to-1 dictionary cipher doesn't affect the word frequencies and the word order (see also my answers given You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.). Therefore your method does something different.

You only rephrase the same statements again and again. (Isn't it funny that you do it while arguing against the self-citation method?) Therefore I don't see any need to respond to further repeats of yours.