10 ms·

So much for that Voynich manuscript “solution”

127 points by blinskey 9y ago

reza_n 9y ago
Given some of the progress here [1], there is a chance it can be translated in the near future if given the proper resources. [1] https://youtu.be/lhtZc-nFNt0 https://youtu.be/lhtZc-nFNt0
- raverbashing 9y ago
  This latest video is very interesting, and it seems the translation is progressing Very nice work
- rnhmjoj 9y ago
  Who is the author of that incredible analysis? I can't find anything about Volder Z/Derek Vogt. Is it perhaps a pseudonym? Derek Bickerton[1] + Hans Vogt[2]? [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Bickerton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Bickerton [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Vogt_(linguist) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Vogt_(linguist)
  - xopher 9y ago
    His work is building on the observations of commentators Stephen Bax's blog. https://stephenbax.net/ https://stephenbax.net/
jack9 9y ago
This looks like a lot of elitists trying to grab some notoriety for their niche projects. Inappropriate criticism by people who (quite obviously) want some credit for their time spent, rather bash a casual observer in lieu of that. His crime is putting together a contextual narrative based on some existing deductions. It's a health book - "sleuths that had already reached that conclusion". There was nothing spectacular about that article, other than he said it was settled and that doesn't sit well with people looking for greater meaning and glory. Then the "can't prove an index just because pages are missing" is basically ignoring a coherent narrative for no purpose. Even the objection to the interpretations - "Personally I object to his interpretation of abbreviations." is strangely contrarian. As you might imagine, the Voynich solution looks reasonable to me, but that's probably because I'm an ignorant layman with no stake in it.
- coldtea 9y ago
  >This looks like a lot of elitists trying to grab some notoriety for their niche projects. Inappropriate criticism by people who (quite obviously) want some credit for their time spent, rather bash a casual observer in lieu of that. This looks like cheering for the "little man" who went against the establishment, similarly to people championing alternative diets, crystals, perpetual motion machines, and cold fusion inventors...
  - jack9 9y ago
    "Little man" meaning what? A generalist in comparison to specialists too timid to put together a sensible conclusion for a publication?
    - coldtea 9y ago
      For one, many of those specialists have indeed "put together a sensible conclusion for a publication". They even have written articles and even books about their opinions on this manuscript (and others). What they didn't do (well, what most didn't do, some did that too) was go ahead and shout to the media "we broke the code" when they had just as much and just as inconclusive information as any other. The "generalist" just didn't have such qualms. It's not about him being brave enough to put 2+2 together when those pesky specialists (where he got all his knowledge from) failed to dare.
      - jack9 9y ago
        I gave an alternate characterization and you ran with it, ignoring the core question of what you meant by "little man" to move the goalpost. Good luck with whatever.
- firasd 9y ago
  You can't say you cracked a mysterious coded text and then not provide the solution except to hand-wave it away by saying there's an additional reference that was lost. I can 'solve' anything that way. If Gibbs doesn't have the plain text, at best he has a theory.
senko 9y ago
I'm going to go off on a tangent and complain about Ars Technica here. As a long-time reader of the site, it feels to me like lately (ie. around the time Conde Nast bought them) the quality started slowly but surely sliding down. This here is yet another minor data-point that reinforces that feeling. The original article covering the supposed discovery was written like it's pretty much a solved thing (yes, all the usual CYA phrases are there so the author can weasel out if it turns out not to be true). Yet for anyone who's ever heard about the Voynich manuscript, the extraordinary claim that it's deciphered should be substantiated with an extraordinary amount of evidence, the lack of which wasn't questioned at all. Then, without as much as "oops, we've been duped too", the author goes on to describe why claims covered by the first article by so much enthusiasm are not true or proven, ending with an ad-hominem about the "discoverer". This (minus the ad hominems) really should've been part of the original article. Hell, split it into two pages if you're after the clicks! To me, this says more about Ars than about the (non)issue at hand - it's finally slid down to the level of a typical net publication. Sad!
- ethnic_throw 9y ago
  > To me, this says more about Ars than about the (non)issue at hand - it's finally slid down to the level of a typical net publication. One swallow does not a summer make!
- chillingeffect 9y ago
  Modern media^Wworld is all about having it both ways. They anger you, then beg for understanding.
- mappu 9y ago
  Ars is only as good as its authors - every time i am particularly impressed or displeased with an article, i check the author. Some patterns emerge.
  - jron 9y ago
    Cyrus Farivar is one of the worst.
ethnic_throw 9y ago
> Gibbs said in the TLS article that he did his research for an unnamed "television network." Given that Gibbs' main claim to fame before this article was a series of books about how to write and sell television screenplays, it seems that his goal in this research was probably to sell a television screenplay of his own. In 2015, Gibbs did an interview where he said that in five years, "I would like to think I could have a returnable series up and running." Considering the dubious accuracy of many History Channel "documentaries," he might just get his wish. Welp, this just killed any interest I had even if his idea was intriguing.
lisper 9y ago
Can I gloat now? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15187695 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15187695
- tpeo 9y ago
  I'd suggest you don't. Gibbs' attempt at deciphering the Voynich manuscript wasn't bad simply on the account of it's premises, but because it was something lazily slapped together without much further thought. But a "logographic" approach to deciphering the manuscript might not be off the table.
  - lisper 9y ago
    Fair enough, then I won't. :-)
mcguire 9y ago
"In 2015, Gibbs did an interview where he said that in five years, "I would like to think I could have a returnable series up and running." Considering the dubious accuracy of many History Channel "documentaries," he might just get his wish." Ouch.
altotrees 9y ago
Ugh, this, the Somerton Man cipher as the Zodiac cipher are my top three to see cracked. Maybe someday...
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
Nursie 9y ago
Yeah, the last article was over-ambitious. "We've got the solution! I've come up with a few theories (which aren't necessarily new) and can definitively say it was translatable, only we would need the index, so it's now not translatable at all. No I can't prove it. Bye!" It wasn't very compelling.

127 points by blinskey 9y ago

Given some of the progress here [1], there is a chance it can be translated in the near future if given the proper resources. [1] https://youtu.be/lhtZc-nFNt0 https://youtu.be/lhtZc-nFNt0

raverbashing 9y ago
This latest video is very interesting, and it seems the translation is progressing Very nice work
rnhmjoj 9y ago
Who is the author of that incredible analysis? I can't find anything about Volder Z/Derek Vogt. Is it perhaps a pseudonym? Derek Bickerton[1] + Hans Vogt[2]? [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Bickerton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Bickerton [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Vogt_(linguist) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Vogt_(linguist)
- xopher 9y ago
  His work is building on the observations of commentators Stephen Bax's blog. https://stephenbax.net/ https://stephenbax.net/

jack9 9y ago

This looks like a lot of elitists trying to grab some notoriety for their niche projects. Inappropriate criticism by people who (quite obviously) want some credit for their time spent, rather bash a casual observer in lieu of that. His crime is putting together a contextual narrative based on some existing deductions. It's a health book - "sleuths that had already reached that conclusion". There was nothing spectacular about that article, other than he said it was settled and that doesn't sit well with people looking for greater meaning and glory. Then the "can't prove an index just because pages are missing" is basically ignoring a coherent narrative for no purpose. Even the objection to the interpretations - "Personally I object to his interpretation of abbreviations." is strangely contrarian. As you might imagine, the Voynich solution looks reasonable to me, but that's probably because I'm an ignorant layman with no stake in it.

coldtea 9y ago
>This looks like a lot of elitists trying to grab some notoriety for their niche projects. Inappropriate criticism by people who (quite obviously) want some credit for their time spent, rather bash a casual observer in lieu of that. This looks like cheering for the "little man" who went against the establishment, similarly to people championing alternative diets, crystals, perpetual motion machines, and cold fusion inventors...
- jack9 9y ago
  "Little man" meaning what? A generalist in comparison to specialists too timid to put together a sensible conclusion for a publication?
  - coldtea 9y ago
    For one, many of those specialists have indeed "put together a sensible conclusion for a publication". They even have written articles and even books about their opinions on this manuscript (and others). What they didn't do (well, what most didn't do, some did that too) was go ahead and shout to the media "we broke the code" when they had just as much and just as inconclusive information as any other. The "generalist" just didn't have such qualms. It's not about him being brave enough to put 2+2 together when those pesky specialists (where he got all his knowledge from) failed to dare.
    - jack9 9y ago
      I gave an alternate characterization and you ran with it, ignoring the core question of what you meant by "little man" to move the goalpost. Good luck with whatever.
firasd 9y ago
You can't say you cracked a mysterious coded text and then not provide the solution except to hand-wave it away by saying there's an additional reference that was lost. I can 'solve' anything that way. If Gibbs doesn't have the plain text, at best he has a theory.

senko 9y ago

I'm going to go off on a tangent and complain about Ars Technica here. As a long-time reader of the site, it feels to me like lately (ie. around the time Conde Nast bought them) the quality started slowly but surely sliding down. This here is yet another minor data-point that reinforces that feeling. The original article covering the supposed discovery was written like it's pretty much a solved thing (yes, all the usual CYA phrases are there so the author can weasel out if it turns out not to be true). Yet for anyone who's ever heard about the Voynich manuscript, the extraordinary claim that it's deciphered should be substantiated with an extraordinary amount of evidence, the lack of which wasn't questioned at all. Then, without as much as "oops, we've been duped too", the author goes on to describe why claims covered by the first article by so much enthusiasm are not true or proven, ending with an ad-hominem about the "discoverer". This (minus the ad hominems) really should've been part of the original article. Hell, split it into two pages if you're after the clicks! To me, this says more about Ars than about the (non)issue at hand - it's finally slid down to the level of a typical net publication. Sad!

ethnic_throw 9y ago
> To me, this says more about Ars than about the (non)issue at hand - it's finally slid down to the level of a typical net publication. One swallow does not a summer make!
chillingeffect 9y ago
Modern media^Wworld is all about having it both ways. They anger you, then beg for understanding.
mappu 9y ago
Ars is only as good as its authors - every time i am particularly impressed or displeased with an article, i check the author. Some patterns emerge.
- jron 9y ago
  Cyrus Farivar is one of the worst.

ethnic_throw 9y ago

> Gibbs said in the TLS article that he did his research for an unnamed "television network." Given that Gibbs' main claim to fame before this article was a series of books about how to write and sell television screenplays, it seems that his goal in this research was probably to sell a television screenplay of his own. In 2015, Gibbs did an interview where he said that in five years, "I would like to think I could have a returnable series up and running." Considering the dubious accuracy of many History Channel "documentaries," he might just get his wish. Welp, this just killed any interest I had even if his idea was intriguing.

lisper 9y ago

Can I gloat now? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15187695 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15187695

tpeo 9y ago
I'd suggest you don't. Gibbs' attempt at deciphering the Voynich manuscript wasn't bad simply on the account of it's premises, but because it was something lazily slapped together without much further thought. But a "logographic" approach to deciphering the manuscript might not be off the table.
- lisper 9y ago
  Fair enough, then I won't. :-)

mcguire 9y ago

"In 2015, Gibbs did an interview where he said that in five years, "I would like to think I could have a returnable series up and running." Considering the dubious accuracy of many History Channel "documentaries," he might just get his wish." Ouch.

altotrees 9y ago

Ugh, this, the Somerton Man cipher as the Zodiac cipher are my top three to see cracked. Maybe someday...

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

Nursie 9y ago

Yeah, the last article was over-ambitious. "We've got the solution! I've come up with a few theories (which aren't necessarily new) and can definitively say it was translatable, only we would need the index, so it's now not translatable at all. No I can't prove it. Bye!" It wasn't very compelling.