The 'Chinese' Theory: For and Against

[eggyk]

First: ...

I understand what you are saying, but this feels disingenuous. This entire response effectively boils down to "people will believe different things when starting from different starting positions", which is true. However, it appears as if you are considering each of those starting positions as valid, which is where this breaks down. You can keep changing the hidden variables for the dice roll scenario, but every time the dice is rolled there is a hypothetical set of assumptions that would be correct. In the case of the VMS, these variables are not changing this way, and if/when they do occasionally change it rightly has a big effect on all assumptions. 

But anyway, with any of these discussions we can only go so far in working out the factual basis upon which we begin. The best way to bring others along convincingly is to have us all understand -and broadly accept/agree with- your foundational assumptions. This is how any argument or discussion is truly won: an argument from first principles. 

Now to be clear, I am not necessarily talking about mathematical first principles, but instead the core foundation for the discussion. What are these? If you want to go deep, I suppose:

"I think therefore I am: I exist"
"I think that reality exists, including other people and objects" 

.... (let's skip ahead, or we'll be here forever)

"The VMS exists"
"Voynich Ninja is a forum platform where people can discuss the VMS"

....(skipping ahead to the relevant part now, let's assume everything above this point is agreed upon by everybody)

"The changes made to the original SBJ are valid"
"The matches found between the SPS and SBJ are valid and signficant"
"The chance that these matches would occur at random is X"
"Please insert any others here"

It is these points that I was adressing when talking about whether the stastical process was correct. If any are flawed, you mind could be reasonably changed in some way. If they are all correct, my mind would be reasonably changed.

So there is still no Western precedent for splitting the zodiac into chunks of 15 "things" rather than 30 "things" (or 12 "things" as in the Astrolabium).

On the other hand, the Chinese "Solar Terms" scheme splits the Zodiac into 24 equal parts. Which would be 15 degrees of arc each.

Agreed, that coincidence (24 parts instead of 12)  is rather weak evidence.  But it is not zero...

Well, astrolabium splits 1 thing into 30 seperately depicted single "things". As opposed to 1 thing split into 30 within a single diagram. Therefore it makes sense that the individual sections can be seperated without issue, which suggests splitting a circle in 2 wouldn't affect the content within. 

And if the solar terms splits into 24 equal parts of 15, why are only two split into 15, and the rest into 30? We can go back and forth on this, but fundamentally neither tradition fits seamlessly with what we see in the VMS. Perhaps nothing does, or ever will.  I don't think either of us can currently use it as evidence of being western, eastern, or anything else.