[VM DAY] State of the Voynich 2024

[Koen G]

We're at 13 responses. Need 3 more to at least match 2017's number.

[Ruby Novacna]

Did you count Cvetka's answer on another thread?

[bi3mw]

1. 75%
 
  2. 30%
 
  3. 50%
 
  4. 20%
 
  5. 90%
 
  6. 80%
 
  7. 20%
 
  8. 75%
 
  9. 50%
 
  10. 50%
 
  11. 50%
 
  12. 75%
 
  13. 25%
 
  14. 50%
 
  15. 25%
 
  16. 20%
 
  17. 25%

[nablator]

0%: - I have no opinion, so I technically can't agree with this.

Then you need negative values for disagreements.

Maybe the question should be asked differently. Instead of "how much do you agree with... ?", it should be "how do you rate the following assertions on a scale of 0 to 100?"
0 = strongly disagree
50 = no opinion
100 = strongly agree

[pedestrian]

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

1. 90%
2. 5% - or 0%, depending on what one interprets as being ‘something close to’
3. 75%
4. 25%
5. 75% - I don’t really have a view on this
6. 75% - I don’t really have a view  on this
7. 5% - I don’t really have a view on this but seems pretty unlikely
8. 50% - I don’t really have a view on this
9. 50%
10. 90%
11. 90%
12. 90% - one mind or a close group of minds
13. 5% - so many people, so few recorded in common history
14. 90%
15. 10%
16. 5%
17. 25%

[nablator]

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

1. Voynichese text, or part of it, contains (semantic) meaning. 75
   
2. The contents have been enciphered with simple substitution or something close to it. 0
   
3. The contents have been enciphered using a more complex cipher. 75
   
4. The contents have been obscured, but not by means of a cipher. 50 (steganography?)
   
5. The images match the text 75
   
6. The plants are meant to refer to real plants 50
   
7. The majority of the plants is exotic from a European perspective (Asian, African, American...) 5
   
8. The images have been made ambiguous or otherwise strange to conceal their true meaning 55
   
9. Alchemy is an important part of the MS. 55
   
10. Astronomy and/or astrology are an important part of the MS. 55
    
11. Medicine an important part of the MS. 55
    
12. The MS is the creative product of one mind, i.e. an author. (Taking into account the possibility that one or more scribes helped to fashion the physical manuscript) 75
    
13. The MS is authored by a known historical figure. Let's define "known" as "has a Wikipedia entry". 5
    
14. One day, we will be able to read the MS. 20
    
15. There will be a breakthrough in Voynich studies in 2024-2025. 5
    
16. The MS is some kind of hoax (i.e. the main motivation for making it was to deceive others). 25
    
17. Have (part of) your views about the MS changed notably over the last few years? 5 (not really)
    

[Koen G]

Maybe the question should be asked differently. Instead of "how much do you agree with... ?", it should be "how do you rate the following assertions on a scale of 0 to 100?"
0 = strongly disagree
50 = no opinion
100 = strongly agree

That's a good idea, but a bit late to implement now. Next edition

[Mark Knowles]

1. Voynichese text, or part of it, contains (semantic) meaning. 90%

2. The contents have been enciphered with simple substitution or something close to it. 10%

3. The contents have been enciphered using a more complex cipher. 85%

4. The contents have been obscured, but not by means of a cipher. 5%

5. The images match the text 80%

6. The plants are meant to refer to real plants 90%

7. The majority of the plants is exotic from a European perspective (Asian, African, American...) 5%

8. The images have been made ambiguous or otherwise strange to conceal their true meaning 10%

9. Alchemy is an important part of the MS. 20%

10. Astronomy and/or astrology are an important part of the MS. 95%

11. Medicine an important part of the MS. 90%

12. The MS is the creative product of one mind, i.e. an author. (Taking into account the possibility that one or more scribes helped to fashion the physical manuscript)

I am inclined to the view that there are multiple authors, though this is in significant part assuming that Lisa Fagin-Davis's work showing multiple scribal hands is correct. 30%

13. The MS is authored by a known historical figure. Let's define "known" as "has a Wikipedia entry".

Given my theory that the Voynich was written by Antonio Barbavara possibly in collaboration with some or all of his brothers Marcolino, Francesco, Giovanni, Pietro, Nicolino. This theory lies on the very edge of "known" Antonio Barbavara does not have his own Wikipedia page, although he is mentioned on the Wikipedia page of the Abbey for which he was Abbot. Giovanni Barbavara does have his own Wikipedia page. Marcolino Barbavara and Francesco Barbavara have quite long biographies on Treccani the Italian historical encyclopedia. On this basis I will say that the author of the Voynich only just fits into the "known" historical figure category, though on the very edge of the category. So on this basis I will give it an 85% of my theory of authorship being correct.

14. One day, we will be able to read the MS. 85%

15. There will be a breakthrough in Voynich studies in 2024-2025. 10%

16. The MS is some kind of hoax (i.e. the main motivation for making it was to deceive others). 5%

17. Have (part of) your views about the MS changed notably over the last few years? Not sure how long "few" is. 10%

[nablator]

That's a good idea, but a bit late to implement now. Next edition

If everyone has a different interpretation, the results will be meaningless:

Emma May Smith's no opinion = 0%

pedestrian's no opinion = 50-75%

my no opinion = 50%

[Koen G]

If everyone has a different interpretation, the results will be meaningless:

Emma May Smith's no opinion = 0%

pedestrian's no opinion = 50-75%

my no opinion = 50%

I assume that most people will gravitate towards 50% when they don't have an opinion either way. So in this case, Emma's use of 0% as "no opinion" is an outlier. And if pedestrian goes over 50%, it means he's more likely to agree than to disagree. I don't think it will have too much of an impact, especially since this is meant as a "for fun" segment and not a peer reviewed publication.