Could the Voynich Author Be a "Ramanujan-style" Anomaly?

[chenxiang]

Hi Chenxiang, 

For only 16 you seem very mature and intelligent for your age.
I think you are 100% correct, the VMS is truly unique so the person(s) behind it are likely unique also. So your intuition is correct (I think). 

There are lots of counterarguments to the broader theory, as you acknowledge. 

Some of the fun of the Voynich Manuscript is that it is a "sandbox" for ideas and tests, another is that researching and learning about "why you are probably wrong" can lead to a lot of learning about various things of interest and you will find you learn more than you would by being "the stubborn rock in the sea defying the waves" and refusing to look past your idea. These things you learn usually develop your ideas further, or snuff them out and lead to other thoughts and ideas.. the cycle continues, and the more you learn.

Specifically on the idea that the VMS was the work of one person I would recommend Lisa Fagin Davis "Many Scribes Theory". Secondly I would recommend Koen's work on A/B plants. I can't seem to find the links to them now, but hopefully you can find / someone can put it here. Anyway, the evidence put forward seems to show that we have something like 6 scribes and at least 2 "artists", maybe this number is 6 also. The point is that several people surely worked on the Voynich manuscript we see today, it doesn't mean there can't be one author, or that it is not a copy. However it does mean "one persons work" is a theory, and multiple peoples work on a manuscript is what we are looking at today. 

I hope that was some food for thought at least and a nudge into the adventure that is Voynich research. Best of luck!

Thank you for the kind words and the valuable advice. I completely agree with the "sandbox" mindset—I'm here to learn, not to defend a stubborn theory. The "stubborn rock in the sea" analogy is great, and I hope to use the counterarguments to refine my way of thinking.

You brought up a fascinating point about Lisa Fagin Davis's "Many Scribes Theory" and Koen's work on the A/B plants. This actually makes me question my own "Ramanujan-style anomaly" premise. Ramanujan was an isolated, singular genius. But if we are looking at the work of 6 scribes and 2 artists, how does the "genius" factor apply?

Here's my thought process: Could it be that the original author (the one who invented the script and system) was the true "genius," but the manuscript we see today is a corrupted, composite copy made by later scribes who didn't fully understand the underlying logic? That would explain the inconsistencies and "exceptions" JoJo_Jost pointed out earlier.

Alternatively, could the "genius" be collective? If multiple scribes produced text that maintains such consistent statistical properties (like Zipf's law), they must have been following a highly disciplined set of rules.

My question for you: When Lisa Fagin Davis talks about multiple scribes, does the statistical analysis show they were copying a pre-existing text, or does it look like they were each composing new text using a shared codebook? And regarding the A/B plants, do those suggest different artists, or different botanical sources compiled into one book?

I will definitely look up their work. If you or anyone else has the links to those threads, I would be very grateful. Thanks again for the nudge into the adventure!