04-12-2021, 04:12 PM
In discussing a Voynich prize the issue of handling a large number of false decipherment "solutions" was raised.
I get the impression, though I haven't looked in depth at many false solutions, that they have a lot of common and so very similar flaws. Whether the theory is proto-turkic or proto-romance or some kind of vulgar latin it seems they have a "degree of freedom" problem such that there is sufficient flexibility in interpretation that a theory can be made to fit. It also appears that the process by which the theories were created has a lot in common.
It is my opinion that the real solution will have very little in common with these kinds of theories both in the method by which it was arrived at and the structure and nature of the actual solution.
However in order to reduce the time taken investigating false solutions it could be worth classifying them and so when a new theory is presented it can be classified as for example a "Cheshire solution" or other type. One can then point to the flawed method by which the solution was constructed and the flawed widely open to interpretation, inherently highly flexible solution structure.
The degrees of freedom allowed in such solutions that we even see in the anagram "Artificial Intelligence" theory should be a warning that "there is something rotten in the state of Denmark"(apologies to any Danes; it's a Shakespeare quote) With sufficient degrees of freedom in interpretation then any theory will fit. As an absurd example if I postulate that every Voynich symbol can represent any letter in the alphabet then I can interpret the text to read whatever I wish. Whilst that is certainly an extreme example it appears to me that so many false solutions have such a large degree of freedom.
Managing these false solutions may help in the construction of standard tests for these theories.
So I see the handling of a large number of false solutions as unlikely to be problematic.
I get the impression, though I haven't looked in depth at many false solutions, that they have a lot of common and so very similar flaws. Whether the theory is proto-turkic or proto-romance or some kind of vulgar latin it seems they have a "degree of freedom" problem such that there is sufficient flexibility in interpretation that a theory can be made to fit. It also appears that the process by which the theories were created has a lot in common.
It is my opinion that the real solution will have very little in common with these kinds of theories both in the method by which it was arrived at and the structure and nature of the actual solution.
However in order to reduce the time taken investigating false solutions it could be worth classifying them and so when a new theory is presented it can be classified as for example a "Cheshire solution" or other type. One can then point to the flawed method by which the solution was constructed and the flawed widely open to interpretation, inherently highly flexible solution structure.
The degrees of freedom allowed in such solutions that we even see in the anagram "Artificial Intelligence" theory should be a warning that "there is something rotten in the state of Denmark"(apologies to any Danes; it's a Shakespeare quote) With sufficient degrees of freedom in interpretation then any theory will fit. As an absurd example if I postulate that every Voynich symbol can represent any letter in the alphabet then I can interpret the text to read whatever I wish. Whilst that is certainly an extreme example it appears to me that so many false solutions have such a large degree of freedom.
Managing these false solutions may help in the construction of standard tests for these theories.
So I see the handling of a large number of false solutions as unlikely to be problematic.