12-03-2026, 04:49 PM
After quite a long time (months) trying to adapt my knowledge in data science, and the new things I have learned along the way, to the analysis of the Voynich text, I am reaching a rather frustrating point where I ask myself whether we might actually be at the end of the road regarding the analysis of the manuscript’s text.
What I have been finding lately in the studies I have carried out and posted here is that the results at the level of text structure, entropy, etc., all end up reaching and reaffirming conclusions that “human” experts had already arrived at years or even decades ago. It does not seem that we can squeeze much more information out of the Voynich text, assuming it is a text at all.
I am convinced that if no human has been able to solve the Voynich, we will not be able to do it with the help of artificial intelligence either, since in the end it only repeats what humans have already done before.
Do you think that, from the perspective of text analysis, it is still possible to go further?
What I have been finding lately in the studies I have carried out and posted here is that the results at the level of text structure, entropy, etc., all end up reaching and reaffirming conclusions that “human” experts had already arrived at years or even decades ago. It does not seem that we can squeeze much more information out of the Voynich text, assuming it is a text at all.
I am convinced that if no human has been able to solve the Voynich, we will not be able to do it with the help of artificial intelligence either, since in the end it only repeats what humans have already done before.
Do you think that, from the perspective of text analysis, it is still possible to go further?
![[+]](https://www.voynich.ninja/images/collapse_collapsed.png)