Re: VMs: RE: GC's first reply

[Gordon Rugg <g.rugg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Some interesting points here, especially in light of John Elliott's email.

Regarding Gabriel's first point, I agree that the argument "famous codebreakers
couldn't crack this therefore it's unlikely to be a code" is not a good one.
There's a different and more interesting argument, which is that the community
has already eliminated a large number of possible coding systems. My
understanding of the current situation is that if there is a code in the
manuscript, then it has to be substantially different from any previously known
code from the 15th/16th centuries, and probably more sophisticated. That's by no
means impossible, but I do wonder how likely it is that a system fitting that
description would only appear in this anonymous manuscript.

Other coding systems from that period, as far as I know, were either used in a
number of texts, or were described in the literature by their originators, or
both. I'd feel a lot happier with the "unidentified code" argument if the
manuscript fitted onto a neat "difficulty of solution" curve, where there were
(say) a couple of other mediaeval codes which had taken twenty years to crack
using modern methods, and a dozen which had taken ten years, and fifty which had
taken a year, and so on. However, as far as I know, no known mediaeval code has
taken more than a few days to crack using modern methods once these had been
applied - even the Steganographia took Jim Reeds just a couple of days.

On the separate point of the manuscript's statistical properties, it's quite
possible that these were accidental by-products of the system used to generate
the manuscript (whether it was a code or a hoax). The manuscript was clearly not
produced using simple random text generation - we can eliminate that possibility
quite easily. However, it's possible to produce pretty complex-looking output
from very simple methods - for instance, fractals look pretty complex, but derive
from simple equations. At the moment, I think we simply don't know the upper
bounds for apparent complexity produced by using hoaxing methods, though I'm
currently working on that, and will publish the results as soon as I can.
Interestingly, the literature on linguistic output from channeling and related
methods suggests that the upper bounds for these are not complex enough to match
Voynichese - for instance, Helene Smith's alleged Martian, and Dee and Kelley's
Enochian, both have syntax which maps directly onto that of French and English
respectively.

As to whether the manuscript is a hoax, a code, or a language, I'm fairly
agnostic. My main argument is that the VMS research community includes excellent
linguists, codebreakers, palaeographers, and pretty much every other sort of
expertise that is relevant, with the striking exception of experts on hoaxing
coded mediaeval manuscripts. This is scarcely a surprise - I can't imagine that
there would be many university courses on that topic :-) - but I think that it's
a gap which needs to be filled.

Best wishes,

Gordon

Gabriel Landini wrote:

> Hi Gordon (and all),
> On Tuesday 08 July 2003 09:16, Gordon Rugg wrote:
>
> > The "hoax" theory is usually rejected on the grounds of what Dawkins calls
> > "argument from personal incredulity", i.e. "I find it impossible to believe
> > X".
>
> I guess that Dawkins arguments works both ways :-/
> I have this feeling that the hoax theory is one that some people tend to like
> based on the semi-accurate assumption that "famous codebreakers could not
> crack this ms.": if it cannot be cracked, it cannot be a language/code/cipher
> and (by default) it must be a hoax.
> It is a bit like "sour grapes".  :-)
>
> Also think that if the 600 ducats information was not in Marci's letter, then
> the (old) value of the ms would be unknown and the "reward" for a hoax would
> not be an issue. Would the hoax idea be as strong? Of course it is difficult
> to speculate on things that haven't happened! :-)
>
> > The problem with that is that expertise is brittle - the literature on
> > expertise consistently reports that when experts move off their home
> > ground, their performance drops rapidly to the level of lay people.
>
> Well... experts *are* lay people which have an area of expertise! :-) but I
> would be more cautious when listening to an expert outside their area of
> expertise than listening to a non-expert on anything. Why? experts on
> something may have a better methodological approach to dissect a particular
> problem. Just think about Ventris' cracking of linear-B.
>
> > As far as I can tell, we simply don't have much solid reported data about
> > how easy or difficult it is to hoax any given feature of the VMS, so
> > opinions about this are currently at the level of speculation.
>
> What we know, though, (if one assumes that the ms was written in 1400s or
> thereabouts) that a number of its statistical properties are very unlikely to
> have been planned because their existence was not apparent at that time. One
> cannot design what one does not know.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Gabriel
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
> unsubscribe vms-list

______________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
unsubscribe vms-list