26-07-2024, 05:18 PM
I agree that every argument should be judged by its own merit, regardless of the originator or the company it keeps. But I still think it is better, if at all possible, to approach the Voynich without forming a theory first. Usually, when someone thinks "maybe it's written in Old English", they will indeed find evidence that it is written in Old English. In the majority of cases, such approaches to the MS are not very productive.
Regarding your theory, it is not because you demonstrate that it could be done, that it was necessarily done that way. Theoretically possible (what you have shown) does not necessarily equal "likely". I believe that it is from this division between theoretical possibility and historical likelihood that our misunderstanding or miscommunication arises.
For example, one could probably devise a way for valid Roman numerals to be generated. But that does not mean that a medieval accounting book full of Roman numerals was generated by this method.
Regarding your theory, it is not because you demonstrate that it could be done, that it was necessarily done that way. Theoretically possible (what you have shown) does not necessarily equal "likely". I believe that it is from this division between theoretical possibility and historical likelihood that our misunderstanding or miscommunication arises.
For example, one could probably devise a way for valid Roman numerals to be generated. But that does not mean that a medieval accounting book full of Roman numerals was generated by this method.