15-11-2025, 02:54 PM
I wonder about one thing...
I can roughly imagine how the theoretical solution of Voynich Manuscript would look like. So someone gives a reading that:
- makes sense and is grammatical
- is relevant to the source text
- is consistent and generated using some general rules
- anyone can get it using these rules (is replicable)
and so on
But if someone wanted to prove that VM is nonsensical, how would the definitive proof look like? Is it possible at all?
I suppose "It is nonsensical because we cannot read it" argument isn't enough
Recently several people are analysing VM on statistical levels. They find some patterns in the text. Some are similar to real texts and some aren't.
But my feeling is that these statistical methods won't give 100% answer it the text is meaningful or not. They can say if the text is grammatical/rule based but it is not the same.
Imagine someone writing down the list of Chinese villages. I checked and some sources say that there are 600 000 of them. So we would have a text of 600 000 words without any grammar. Yet it would be meaningful.
On the other hand imagine some abstract poem like You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. but maybe even more "hardcore":
It would have grammar be still no sense:
Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
So is it possible at all to say 100% sure if the text is meaningless and not in some language or encryption that we don't know?
I can roughly imagine how the theoretical solution of Voynich Manuscript would look like. So someone gives a reading that:
- makes sense and is grammatical
- is relevant to the source text
- is consistent and generated using some general rules
- anyone can get it using these rules (is replicable)
and so on
But if someone wanted to prove that VM is nonsensical, how would the definitive proof look like? Is it possible at all?
I suppose "It is nonsensical because we cannot read it" argument isn't enough
Recently several people are analysing VM on statistical levels. They find some patterns in the text. Some are similar to real texts and some aren't.
But my feeling is that these statistical methods won't give 100% answer it the text is meaningful or not. They can say if the text is grammatical/rule based but it is not the same.
Imagine someone writing down the list of Chinese villages. I checked and some sources say that there are 600 000 of them. So we would have a text of 600 000 words without any grammar. Yet it would be meaningful.
On the other hand imagine some abstract poem like You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. but maybe even more "hardcore":
It would have grammar be still no sense:
Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
So is it possible at all to say 100% sure if the text is meaningless and not in some language or encryption that we don't know?