23-03-2026, 03:55 PM
@ mauro
I am well aware that this thesis cannot be proven; I mentioned that earlier as well.
I don’t know how many people realize that the negation of a cipher is, by its very inherent nature, impossible to prove. It is a paradox in itself. But that doesn’t mean you can’t formulate such a theory. That, in turn, would be a blunder—one that AI, incidentally, makes; it claims the theory is unfalsifiable. That is correct, but it fails to recognize the problem just described.
I have merely tried, within the context of time and according to the guidelines provided by the VMS, to find the logic behind it all. Why are the drawings so poor, why is so much of it so poor, why are there no spelling errors (well, there are other theories on that), why is it so poorly written—that is, without lines, etc.? Sure, a charlatan could have written it, but there’s too much work behind it for that.
They lacked both the time and the money for that.
It is much more logical to assume that a monastic community was behind the text. But why would they do something like this in this way? They clearly had much better scribes at their disposal.
And what I am writing here is the reasoning that highlights all the weaknesses of the VMS. And it does so within an appropriate temporal and philosophical/cultural context.
Can I prove it? No. And yet it is one of the most plausible theories so far. And that is precisely what makes the theory so elegant....
I don’t need to design wheels that replicate the text, although I probably could; the texts are extremely structured—recreating the structure should be simple.
But what would that prove? Even if I could “create” the text using a Llullian wheel, I would be accused of having optimized it afterward. That wouldn’t be proof. And it’s such a shame, almost devastating: this line of reasoning would actually be correct.
I am well aware that this thesis cannot be proven; I mentioned that earlier as well.
I don’t know how many people realize that the negation of a cipher is, by its very inherent nature, impossible to prove. It is a paradox in itself. But that doesn’t mean you can’t formulate such a theory. That, in turn, would be a blunder—one that AI, incidentally, makes; it claims the theory is unfalsifiable. That is correct, but it fails to recognize the problem just described.
I have merely tried, within the context of time and according to the guidelines provided by the VMS, to find the logic behind it all. Why are the drawings so poor, why is so much of it so poor, why are there no spelling errors (well, there are other theories on that), why is it so poorly written—that is, without lines, etc.? Sure, a charlatan could have written it, but there’s too much work behind it for that.
They lacked both the time and the money for that.
It is much more logical to assume that a monastic community was behind the text. But why would they do something like this in this way? They clearly had much better scribes at their disposal.
And what I am writing here is the reasoning that highlights all the weaknesses of the VMS. And it does so within an appropriate temporal and philosophical/cultural context.
Can I prove it? No. And yet it is one of the most plausible theories so far. And that is precisely what makes the theory so elegant....
I don’t need to design wheels that replicate the text, although I probably could; the texts are extremely structured—recreating the structure should be simple.
But what would that prove? Even if I could “create” the text using a Llullian wheel, I would be accused of having optimized it afterward. That wouldn’t be proof. And it’s such a shame, almost devastating: this line of reasoning would actually be correct.