02-08-2025, 12:23 AM
While the paper of Dunin and Schmeh is in no way proof of the nr. of authors of Voynich MS, and I also did not say that, I do disagree with several of the arguments against this that were presented above.
We should not assume that the Voynich MS is in cipher, nor that it has meaning. It may or it may not. What we can safely say is that it either has a hidden meaning or it pretends to have this. Let's just call it mysterious in order to have a single word.
Books of which we don't know the number of authors are a seperate category. They are neutral with respect to the question of the number of authors, not against either of the other possibilities.
When looking at mysterious books, it is reasonable to consider as many as possible other mysterious books. There just aren't that many.
That these are not chosen 'at random' is not a valid argument, unless I misunderstood this point.
We can always imagine all sorts of things that could have happened. That does not make our imagination a strong argument. This applies to the handwriting analysis, the radio-carbon dating and many other aspects. The people who did these analysis also could imagine these things and may be assumed to have considered them.
(In some cases this is also documented).
Unfortunately, due to local and personal events, I cannot be very active in the coming days, and will barely read the forum if at all.
We should not assume that the Voynich MS is in cipher, nor that it has meaning. It may or it may not. What we can safely say is that it either has a hidden meaning or it pretends to have this. Let's just call it mysterious in order to have a single word.
Books of which we don't know the number of authors are a seperate category. They are neutral with respect to the question of the number of authors, not against either of the other possibilities.
When looking at mysterious books, it is reasonable to consider as many as possible other mysterious books. There just aren't that many.
That these are not chosen 'at random' is not a valid argument, unless I misunderstood this point.
We can always imagine all sorts of things that could have happened. That does not make our imagination a strong argument. This applies to the handwriting analysis, the radio-carbon dating and many other aspects. The people who did these analysis also could imagine these things and may be assumed to have considered them.
(In some cases this is also documented).
Unfortunately, due to local and personal events, I cannot be very active in the coming days, and will barely read the forum if at all.