RE: Voynich manuscript is decoded
i_want_links_damit > 3 hours ago
While there is some interesting research here and it gets off to a good start it also reproduces a pattern which ironically consists of a reproducible lack of reproducibility. I have seen it a number of times and have also seen the obvious capacity for it to occur in my own work.
The problem lies in disintegration. You convert it to some alphabet then try to match it to what you're familiar with. Long sequences fail but not short sequences. That's just the consequence of numbers. I notice almost a numerological pattern that I have to often put aside because it's simply the nature of numbers, small numbers, that they will be seen again and again as larger numbers are composed of them.
I can take a word, mubumibala and it doesn't exist anywhere to my knowledge as I just made it up. Letters are numbers and you can just make that up too. In fact I have accidentally made the recognisable word bum. There is also ba, well that is part of bad. If I break it into parts then it inherently matches more and more words. I could reduce it to u and assume a process of reducing words to one letter.
Well, that's not really reversible. It's like a one way hash. It can match in reverse to many words. If I repeat that process then for each letter or few letters I can choose from a huge list of words and it becomes easy to choose a combination of words that would be valid in terms of making sense and matching the content on the page. It's a warning sign when you get a string that you then expand to a sentence as if compressed and it produces more than you would get from some of the best lossless compression techniques such as LZMA. Necessarily in that case of reversing a lossy compression you must be filling in the gaps yourself.
I see this here. I look at the page and I do not see a truly repeatable process. I see a mapping to an alphabet and that is a fair first step but then when a wall is hit there is a leap into producing a final step with no concrete or explicable and repeatable steps in between. It comes across as something only one person can do and that surely is because it is, it's subjective. There is a similar thing out there with a potential Hebrew interpretation that relies upon removing letters. I attempted to reproduce this and make a mapping table and hit an unexpected wall. It looked easy at first, the person had presented something that looked like a Rosetta but if you try to repeat it then it doesn't work.
Lets say I make up two phone numbers at random...
433424232477 -> 2424224
654982383240 -> 6482824
They don't match. Why don't they match? A number grows and they have grown apart from zero. The more I take away the close they come to matching. You can match almost any two texts or languages more and more by removing parts. I can make rules for removing parts. I can take out all the even numbers and zero for example as seen above. You notice even though I mashed on the number bar quite differently suddenly they match a lot more. You can also quite easily intuitively pick rules for doing this that is more likely to make it converge with a language you are familiar with as this is your point of reference and sense of right or wrong.
Essentially, it's work presented as finished and with a final result but it doesn't follow throw. It's as if in school the teacher were teaching addition the long way showing each step such as the carry but then half way through instead of continuing with the process just writes the end result on the board missing all of the steps involved. This is in play here and in all other examples. I can understand holding off on disclosing things when the work is in progress but in these cases it is presented as though finished and yet appears as though the critical pieces are withheld.
I can reject or rather a better term is to demote translations using this methodology but at the same time far too many people are too quick to reject this possibility that it uses language itself in this way of breaking it down into shortened versions that increase ambiguity representing a lossy compression that cannot be reliably with high confidence reversed back into the original meaning. It occurs even to some degree with language to the extend I am using it now. Not everything that is in my mind will be preserved or understood when read back despite the use of full complete words and sentences. Many people want to reject that as it raises the level of indecipherability but it must be kept as an option as ought all options. People are far too quick to attempt to collapse the possibilities which is a natural human tendency. I have a disability in which I can't do this properly where as nearly all humans can. I have a certain amount of brain damage in which I cannot as a result for example make small talk. It is however something of an advantage in cases like this but for most people it goes against the grain of how their minds inherently work which is to reduce everything into a few words, an inherently lossy process and a remarkable form of compression albeit one that breaks down in certain scenarios.
The leap to the end undermines what could be useful work. There writeups are clearly leading you down the garden path but at the same time in respect to research do present some relevant finds as well as possibilities to consider. There are images that could be tree grafting or showing a tree regrowing after being cut down with the stump remaining. It is useful to know that roughly around the time and in the vicinity tree grafting was a thing. In this era everything was going on though and every possibility comes into play. It is also a distinct possibility that the pictures of the water nymphs and plumbing are bodily internals. There is a picture that suspiciously looks like a uterus with adjoining parts and the wavy pattern is very reflective of what the surfaces of some inner organs like the stomach look like. There is a drawing style and mindset associated with portraying internal processes with little spirits in them or workers and another of using little spirits like this to explain things. That's a valid possibility but there is a major leap on actually decoding it. It is progress in terms of expanding and collecting the possibilities but I do not see any conclusive method of translation that is reliable. I suggest trying it against an existing text and you'll find you can mutate it like this through decomposition into anything else with a particular problem with language or language like sequences being redundancy allowing for additional meaning to always be invented.
DNA and language all evolve in a similar way to phone numbers in many systems. In many systems of phone numbers or unique ids when programming there is deliberate slack space and waste which is quite huge. Even the universe with empty space is oddly similar. Essentially when I have made systems to print receipts and barcodes for each person it needs to be hard for someone to fake the voucher. If I make a system of phone numbers then I can make it use a large number and a large increment so that instead of issuing phone number 23432432 then 23432433 I might issue 23737422 with several differences so that a mistype is unlikely to call another number. This is even reflected in DNA as there are universal properties not just of language as we speak it but numbers, combinations and their morphology. You have to be careful when interpreting things like this because unlike compression where you try to pack meaning into every bit there systems deliberately carry noise with them ironically for integrity. This is why you can take most words not of too short a length in English for example, change one letter and still recognise it in most cases. Most words in normal language are longer than they need to be in theory just to carry information for this reason and it makes repair easier, this is something the basic spellcheck algorithm would not be able to work so easily as it normally does without.
What is proposed in this Czech interpretation is that it is like a dictionary compression. I have a tool in process that may be able to hint at if that is the case but it's a long road. It also creases certain problems if the dictionary is constructed arbitrarily, personally or creatively.