- Options
- Login
- Desktop Style
Options
Voynich Talk E3: Why your Voynich theory is wrong (pt1)
- Voynich Talk E3: Why your Voynich theory is wrong (pt1)
-
RE: Voynich Talk E3: Why your Voynich theory is wrong (pt1)
Koen G > 12-09-2024, 06:47 PM
French. The idea is that theorists often think that finding an obscure dialect will solve everything. With Cheshire as a prominent example in mind, I was thinking in the Romance dialect family: whether you use standard French or a Romance dialect of your choosing doesn't address the root of the problem. -
RE: Voynich Talk E3: Why your Voynich theory is wrong (pt1)
nablator > 12-09-2024, 07:48 PM
Here's the subtitle file. I fixed a few more errors that I didn't notice yesterday in the automatically generated text. I hope Youtube accepts it, I don't have any experience with uploading subtitles to Youtube. It's in SRT format (SubRip) maybe it needs to be renamed to .srt. -
RE: Voynich Talk E3: Why your Voynich theory is wrong (pt1)
Koen G > 12-09-2024, 08:01 PM
Wow, thanks nablator! It's new to me too, but I've uploaded them as-is and it seems to work.
This is the first video on my channel to get 1000 views. A fraction of the number of views the average solver gets, but we all got to start somewhere
-
RE: Voynich Talk E3: Why your Voynich theory is wrong (pt1)
Ruby Novacna > 13-09-2024, 10:32 AM
-
RE: Voynich Talk E3: Why your Voynich theory is wrong (pt1)
nablator > 13-09-2024, 12:19 PM
(13-09-2024, 10:32 AM)Ruby Novacna Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Thanks again for this!
You're welcome.
I did it mostly because the automatic translation will use it. It doesn't know how to translate Voynichese (French: Voynichien?) but at least it's not cheese anymore...
Good thing that "domais" isn't translated either: maïs (French) = corn (U.S. English)
-
RE: Voynich Talk E3: Why your Voynich theory is wrong (pt1)
BessAgritianin > 14-09-2024, 05:35 AM
Thank You for this game-like video on the serious question :
"Why Your Voynich Theory is wrong".
I find it entertaining and logically exposed with some statistical data and examples.
But being from the addressed part of the audience I would suggest to create a new one:
"Why our scientific (meaning linguistic, statistical, AI, mathematical, decipher etc.) theory is wrong."
There is no idea from scientific workers on the subject about:
What is the language is?????- "0" suggestions
What is it about?- Is it a religious psalm book, or history, or females dreams or what?
Who had written it?- "0" suggestions
At least some of the contents- "0" suggestions
Alphabet transliteration- Wrong suggestions...
Having a void in the scientific explanations in any sphere of science provides a lot of hypothesis.
Even one of them to be the correct is worth doing them- although most are wrong. Because at least they try to find an answer to the questions above. -
RE: Voynich Talk E3: Why your Voynich theory is wrong (pt1)
igajkgko > 14-09-2024, 07:17 AM
(14-09-2024, 05:35 AM)BessAgritianin Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. Even one of them to be the correct is worth doing them- although most are wrong. Because at least they try to find an answer to the questions above.
Assume that we're all looking for the Olympus Mons, but it's now sometime in the future and we've forgotten all about where and what it is. In fact, we've all gone back to farming. All we have left are some blurry and fainted photos of Olympus Mons someone once found lying around in some strange building somewhere.
By this time, the general consensus of those that have spent many years studying the photos is that it cannot possibly be a mountain here on earth. Based on the landscape and various proportions that can be gleaned from the blurry photos, it just cannot fit any of the landscapes. Maybe it's a hoax? Maybe the photos have been manipulated in some very complicated or unintuitive way?
But still, a steady stream of new people keep stumbling upon the puzzle and they all come up with variations of the same solution - "actually, it's a mountain here on earth and I know where it is!".
Some people have looked at the color of the photos and are completely sure that it's somewhere in Sahara. Others can see that it's obviously quite tall, so it's a mountain in the Swiss Alps - how can you not see it? Look, the top of it looks just like Dufourspitze!! (When others point out that the rest of Dufourspitze looks nothing like the blurry pictures it doesn't matter much.)
The issue, of course, is that no matter how many such new theories we get, none of them can possibly ever be correct. There simply is no answer to ever be found in the place where people keeping search for it. -
RE: Voynich Talk E3: Why your Voynich theory is wrong (pt1)
BessAgritianin > 15-09-2024, 04:28 AM
(14-09-2024, 07:17 AM)igajkgko Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The issue, of course, is that no matter how many such new theories we get, none of them can possibly ever be correct. There simply is no answer to ever be found in the place where people keeping search for it.
Let us assume that there is an answer, and we are not after some mirage in Sahara.
What is the criteria to be used to identify the real solution? Who from the researchers will be able to tell- "This is it!"?
If they do not have the correct transliteration and alphabet, if they do not know about subject of the manuscript and all the above questions, that I have asked. Nobody.
There is no Quality Department, like in all manufacturing they have.
Why, because there are not standards which to say what is acceptable and what not. So, to be sure everything is wrong?
The book is from extra terrestrials!
What is the difference between the researchers and the laics then if both parties are wrong?
One who is asking "Why Your Solution is wrong?" won't one look into one's field first and ask oneself: Why there is no crop? -
RE: Voynich Talk E3: Why your Voynich theory is wrong (pt1)
Koen G > 15-09-2024, 10:05 AM
It happens all the time in all branches of science that a problem remains unsolved, and all proposed solutions so far are demonstrably false. The fact that I don't offer a solution of my own does not make substitution solutions any less misguided.
What I'm saying in the video is: please be aware that it won't be as simple as substitution. If we (as a research community) want any hope of ever solving this thing, we will need to look elsewhere. The amounts of alternative solutions I offer have no bearing on how impossible the typical substitution solutions are. -
RE: Voynich Talk E3: Why your Voynich theory is wrong (pt1)
MarcoP > 15-09-2024, 12:53 PM
(15-09-2024, 04:28 AM)BessAgritianin Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.What is the criteria to be used to identify the real solution? Who from the researchers will be able to tell- "This is it!"?
If they do not have the correct transliteration and alphabet, if they do not know about subject of the manuscript and all the above questions, that I have asked.
I guess it may be counter-intuitive, but the skills needed to validate a decoding are different from those needed to find a decoding.
For instance, consider You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (which involved a member of this forum).
The decoding was the result of years of software, cryptological and statistical analysis and this part of the work is quite hard to understand in detail. But everyone who reads the output of the decoding process can see that "I hope you are having lots of fun in trying to catch me" is a totally ordinary English sentence. Going through the step by step process or replicating the decoding is a little more complex, but the decoders described it very clearly in a series of videos.
In the case of the Voynich, if the text is a ciphered natural language, the output of the decoding will be a medieval text. People who are qualified to tell if such a text is valid are palaeographers and philologists, whose job is reading ancient texts. And indeed supposed solutions that caused fake news on international media have been debunked by people like Lisa Fagin Davis, Lidia Becker, Matthew Morgenstern. But most people can read some medieval languages, so they can see by themselves when things are seriously ungrammatical, without bothering academic experts.