VMS: Perhaps of some interest

William Porquet william at 2038.org
Sat Jan 27 21:45:11 EST 2018


Hello Voynich folks,

Yes, Andras, I'm more than dubious too. His "proof" involves a few common
errors Mr. SantaColoma has brought up before on this list (which I'm
paraphrasing here), e.g...

            1. The proposed solution must be replicable by another
researcher who only knows the system
            2. The attempt at replication must arrive at the same output as
the proposer, from the same input (e.g. digital transcripts or
high-resolution scans).
            3. That output must have meaning in some context.
            4. Both laws 1 and 2 must be satisfied.

He gives us nothing to go on for 1 and 2, not even a matrix. Furthermore he
appears to be using a very old transcription system possibly from the days
of the NSA attempts. It's not EVA or Voynich 101. And shame on his for not
even footnoting the transcription he's using!

For 3 he gives us output apparently with meaning (and I think he reading
into apophenia), but no context.

And of course, 4 isn't satisfied.

But it gets worse! He uses well-worn excuses for credibility gaps (also
borrowed from SantaColuma), e.g...

        ◦ “I don't know enough about the language or enciphering method.”
        ◦ “I need more instruction or more explanation.”
        ◦ “I didn't read the output correctly in order to properly
understand it.”

And even still there are these common weak links to achieve desired
results, which makes me thinking he's drinking his own Kool-Aid:

        ◦ The glyphs can have multiple meanings (if he's using using a
pre-EVA transcription system and providing no matrix, how to we know? Is he
assuming allographs?)
        ◦ These meanings can be pronounced or otherwise interpreted in
multiple ways (see above, plus he's taking a lot of license with Hebrew
IMHO)
        ◦ Some glyphs can be ignored, i.e. nulls, filler, etc. often
arbitrarily. Well, in this case he arbitrarily dropped the few vowels that
were even included in traditional Hebrew at the time, which makes no sense
and seems selectively arbitrary
        ◦ After the subjective use of glyphs to derive words in different
languages, the output is further subjected to additional "interpretation"
to try to make sense of it - Google Translate, are you kidding me?!

Not only do I think his theory is wildly incorrect, I wonder if he's
pulling our leg.

Oh well, that was fun to chew on. Frankly I didn't understand a lot of the
maths, but I think he's just showing off his own pet discipline expertise,
applying it to random line-noise, and massaging the process until he can
get Google Translate to spit out something that made some vague sense. I
doubt that the author(s) could have written a codex like that while keeping
the ductus so steady with almost no corrections.

Cheers,
William

On 27 January 2018 at 15:42, Andras Kornai via vms-list <
vms-list at voynich.net> wrote:

> https://transacl.org/ojs/index.php/tacl/article/view/821
>
> Personally I consider the conclusion dubious, but YMMV
>
> _______________________________________________
> vms-list mailing list
> vms-list at voynich.net
> http://mail.voynich.net/mailman/listinfo/vms-list_voynich.net
>



-- 
William Porquet, M.A. ⁂ mailto:william at 2038.orghttp://www.2038.org/
"I do not fear computers.  I fear the lack of them." (Isaac Asimov)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.voynich.net/pipermail/vms-list_voynich.net/attachments/20180127/9d5a46fa/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the vms-list mailing list