Harvard physicist's take on the VMS

[dashstofsk]

have an explanation for how the text is written, but no explanation for why.

No it is the opposite. People who believe in the meaningless text / artificial construction / hoax hypothesis have suggested many 'whys'. ( See something of my own 'why' [ You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. ]. ) If meaningless then 'how' is not really that important. 'How' is a difficult question. We can only guess at the mindset of the writer. Was he someone who thought linguistically, or logically, or spatially, or sequentially. Was he a cautious person, or impulsive? Someone with a different character would have adopted a different construction method, a different 'how'.