Gregor > 11 hours ago
(11 hours ago)oshfdk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(Today, 11:29 AM)Gregor Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.If my interpretation is correct, that turning point is the decoding of the manuscript itself. It is a fact that people have tried to decipher it for centuries, but only now has the possibility of decoding it finally emerged.
Doesn't this mean we can just wait until it's decoded, there is no need to do anything about this in particular? If the information cloud hypothesis is correct and the future is set in stone, I assume the manuscript will be decoded and it cannot be decoded earlier or later than predicted.
Do you think it's possible your own decoding efforts are reflected in the manuscript? Are any images in the manuscript reminiscent of anything or anyone that has anything to do with voynich.ninja?
As a side note, would be interesting to try interpreting the Rosettes as a map of various theories about the Voynich manuscript. Like "the wall of substitution", "Chinese corner", "Bavarian valley", "the mountain of the text is not a text".
eggyk > 10 hours ago
(Today, 11:29 AM)Gregor Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I am not the one deciding which events are represented.
(11 hours ago)Gregor Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.1. Even if we assume hypothetically that the future is already fixed, it does not follow that we should simply wait. If the manuscript is destined to be decoded at some point, then the process of reaching that outcome - including our attempts, mistakes, and discoveries - may itself be part of that predetermined history. From this perspective, there is no contradiction between determinism and active research. In other words, if a solution exists, then someone has to work it out rather than simply wait for it.
Linda > 9 hours ago
(18-04-2025, 08:33 AM)Gregor Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Below, for a better illustration of the time-historical continuum in a telegraphic shorthand, a summary of the individual illustrations of the Voynich Manuscript (from 1R to 51V).
Gregor > 9 hours ago
Jorge_Stolfi > 4 hours ago
(Today, 06:00 AM)Gregor Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.who actually wrote "ab ovo" ... It was Jorge Stolfi who used the expression first; I merely referred to his earlier post.
Gregor > 4 hours ago
(4 hours ago)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(Today, 06:00 AM)Gregor Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.who actually wrote "ab ovo" ... It was Jorge Stolfi who used the expression first; I merely referred to his earlier post.
I am jumping into the middle of the conversation and sorry if I missed the joke or proper reference. But just to clarify, the expression "ab ovo" is not mine. It refers to the Roman poet Horatio praising Homer for not starting the story of the Trojan War "from the egg", namely from the birth of Helen out of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. that resulted from, ahem, the interaction of Leda and Zeus materialized as a swan.
All the best, --stolfi
Jorge_Stolfi > 2 hours ago
(4 hours ago)Gregor Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It seems to me that in trying to correct someone else’s statement, you ended up introducing several inaccuracies yourself
Quote:First, you write that the expression “ab ovo” “refers to Horace.” It does not. In its idiomatic sense, it was popularized by Horace in the Ars Poetica, but the phrase itself is not his invention.
Quote:Second, you claim that Horace was “praising Homer.” This is also an oversimplification. Horace presents Homer as a model of epic composition, pointing out that he does not begin his narrative from the furthest origins of the myth. This is not a simple act of praise, but part of a broader discussion on the principles of poetics.
Quote:The biggest issue, however, appears later. You write about “the birth of Helen from one of two eggs.” Horace says nothing of the sort. In the original text we find the phrase nec gemino bellum Troianum orditur ab ovo — “he does not begin the Trojan War from the double egg.” There is no mention of Helen, nor of “one of two eggs. That is your own reconstruction, based on one of several versions of the myth of Leda. You are therefore presenting an interpretative expansion as if it were part of Horace’s text. Additionally, you omit the word gemino (“double”), which is crucial for understanding the allusion. This may seem like a minor detail, but it is precisely what links the passage to the myth of Leda.
Quote:Stylistically, your wording is also questionable. The phrase “interaction between Leda and Zeus” sounds more like a sociological experiment than a mythological narrative, while “Zeus materialized as a swan” is simply unnatural phrasing. In classical mythology, Zeus is said to have taken the form of a swan, not to have been “materialized” as one.
Quote:In short: you intended to clarify the etymology of ab ovo, but instead introduced elements that are not present in Horace’s text.
tavie > 1 hour ago
Jorge_Stolfi > 47 minutes ago
(1 hour ago)tavie Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It reads like you asked an LLM to provide you with a criticism of Jorge's post