Jorge_Stolfi > 24-09-2026, 11:09 AM
(23-09-2026, 08:57 PM)ololololo Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Of course, these are all assumptions, and I can’t prove it... But at the very least, this is a reminder that sometimes you need to doubt. Even your own wordsWell, I am quite convinced that it is not encrypted and not gibberish, for the reasons you know. But I will try to put that aside those reasons for the moment and keep discussing other arguments against it being encrypted.![]()
Quote:(22-09-2026, 01:48 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Both are rather laborious to encode and decode.2). VMS is hardly some kind of fairy tale. It’s unlikely that the text spanning 200 pages is coherent. The maximum is Quire 13 and Pharma
ololololo > 24-09-2026, 11:19 AM
chenxiang > 24-09-2026, 01:39 PM
(21-09-2026, 12:40 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I think you have put forward a good and interesting argument. I wouldn't go as far as you have.
However, I think is not unreasonable to argue that as the Voynich manuscript is a very unusual historical object the person who produced it may have been an unusual person with unusual abilities. If the person who wrote the manuscript was a true genius then it would make it that much harder to decipher.
(21-09-2026, 12:40 PM)JoJo_Jost Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The answer to “Could it be …?” is always “Yes.”
如果只是问“有没有可能……”,答案永远是“有可能”。![]()
![]()
I find the cipher too unstructured given its complex structure, with too many exceptions—that doesn't fit with a genius.
chenxiang > 24-09-2026, 02:01 PM
(21-09-2026, 12:53 PM)ololololo Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It seems that the author’s knowledge, particularly the knowledge he presented in the book, was quite modern for his time. For example, he must have had some understanding of herbalism and astrology.
I believe it is more likely that the author did not discover something great or anticipate some kind of discovery. Rather, he wanted to understand a topic that was atypical for the 15th century, but due to a lack of knowledge, he arrived at incorrect conclusions.
Perhaps he was trying to engage in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. Perhaps he wanted to learn more about You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. However, back then, knowledge was rather limited, and so the author could explain it in his own way.
What about the cipher? Well, it’s most likely based on homophonic ciphers of that time, just made more complex in its own way.
chenxiang > 24-09-2026, 02:04 PM
(22-09-2026, 10:29 PM)Bluetoes101 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Hi Chenxiang,
For only 16 you seem very mature and intelligent for your age.
I think you are 100% correct, the VMS is truly unique so the person(s) behind it are likely unique also. So your intuition is correct (I think).
There are lots of counterarguments to the broader theory, as you acknowledge.
Some of the fun of the Voynich Manuscript is that it is a "sandbox" for ideas and tests, another is that researching and learning about "why you are probably wrong" can lead to a lot of learning about various things of interest and you will find you learn more than you would by being "the stubborn rock in the sea defying the waves" and refusing to look past your idea. These things you learn usually develop your ideas further, or snuff them out and lead to other thoughts and ideas.. the cycle continues, and the more you learn.
Specifically on the idea that the VMS was the work of one person I would recommend Lisa Fagin Davis "Many Scribes Theory". Secondly I would recommend Koen's work on A/B plants. I can't seem to find the links to them now, but hopefully you can find / someone can put it here. Anyway, the evidence put forward seems to show that we have something like 6 scribes and at least 2 "artists", maybe this number is 6 also. The point is that several people surely worked on the Voynich manuscript we see today, it doesn't mean there can't be one author, or that it is not a copy. However it does mean "one persons work" is a theory, and multiple peoples work on a manuscript is what we are looking at today.
I hope that was some food for thought at least and a nudge into the adventure that is Voynich research. Best of luck!
ololololo > 24-09-2026, 02:27 PM
(24-09-2026, 02:04 PM)chenxiang Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.And regarding the A/B plants, do those suggest different artists, or different botanical sources compiled into one book?Rather, it seems to be the work of different artists. If you take a closer look at the plants in Herbal B, you’ll notice that they’re often drawn carelessly. For example, in some places the artist used little ink, while in others the ink was rather thin. Moreover, the plants in Herbal B look similar to each other (examples in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.).
ololololo > 24-09-2026, 02:36 PM
(24-09-2026, 11:09 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.[*]The Copiale Cipher has the rituals of a Masonic-like secret society that was persecuted at the time, and for which the fun of belonging was mainly in it being secret.Oh, you’re using my favorite examples against me…
[*]The Rohonc codex, according to Rafal, is not really encrypted, but rather a transcription of some deaf sign language.
(24-09-2026, 11:19 AM)ololololo Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.That’s far from certain. To say that, you need to know how the cipher works. But I’m not an expert here…For example, nulls can somewhat distort the statistics of ciphertext. Perhaps there are some other unaccounted factors?
Jorge_Stolfi > 24-09-2026, 07:05 PM
(24-09-2026, 02:36 PM)ololololo Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Oh, you’re using my favorite examples against me…Rather, I am just pointing out that those two examples are not good analogs for the VMS.![]()
(24-09-2026, 11:19 AM)ololololo Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.For example, nulls can somewhat distort the statistics of ciphertext. Perhaps there are some other unaccounted factors?
ololololo > 24-09-2026, 07:10 PM
(24-09-2026, 07:05 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But all attempts to do this with Voynichese have failed...Well, for now, the counterargument remains that the manuscript text is not connected, and encrypting it is relatively easy. By the way, we don’t know the length of the plaintext or how much it is distorted by the cipher.
Jorge_Stolfi > 25-09-2026, 02:45 PM
(24-09-2026, 07:10 PM)ololololo Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I’m hearing very little from you about the statistics of verbose ciphers... What about them?