Wasn't it already deciphered, though?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/368991190_The_Voyni...
Show HN: I modeled the Voynich Manuscript with SBERT to test for structure
31–40 of 142 posts
Re: Show HN: I modeled the Voynich Manuscript with SBERT to test for structure
#32In short, the manuscript looks like a genuine text, not like a random bunch of characters pretending to be a text. Key Findings * Cluster 8 exhibits high frequency, low diversity, and frequent line-starts — likely a function word group * Cluster 3 has high diversity and flexible positioning — likely a root content class * Transition matrix shows strong internal structure, far from random * Cluster usage and POS patte…
Yep, that was my takeaway too — the structure feels too consistent to be random, and it echoes known linguistic patterns.
> the structure feels too consistent to be random
I don't see how it could be random, regardless of whether it is an actual language. Humans are famously terrible at generating randomness.
Re: Show HN: I modeled the Voynich Manuscript with SBERT to test for structure
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
Statistical analyses such as this one consistently find patterns that are consistent with a proper language and would be unlikely to have emerged from someone who was just putting gibberish on the page. To get the kinds of patterns these turn up someone would have had to go a large part of the way towards building a full constructed language, which is interesting in its own right.
> would be unlikely to have emerged from someone who was just putting gibberish on the page People often assert this, but I'm unsure of any evidence. If I wrote a manuscript in a pretend language, I would expect it to end up with language-like patterns, some automatically and some intentionally. Humans aren't random number generators, and they aren't stupid. Therefore, the implicit claim that a human could not create…
For some reason your comment reminds me of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisencolinensinainciusol - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fU-wH8SrFro
Re: Show HN: I modeled the Voynich Manuscript with SBERT to test for structure
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
Statistical analyses such as this one consistently find patterns that are consistent with a proper language and would be unlikely to have emerged from someone who was just putting gibberish on the page. To get the kinds of patterns these turn up someone would have had to go a large part of the way towards building a full constructed language, which is interesting in its own right.
> would be unlikely to have emerged from someone who was just putting gibberish on the page People often assert this, but I'm unsure of any evidence. If I wrote a manuscript in a pretend language, I would expect it to end up with language-like patterns, some automatically and some intentionally. Humans aren't random number generators, and they aren't stupid. Therefore, the implicit claim that a human could not create…
Creating gibberish with the statistical properties of a natural language is a very hard task if you do this hundreds of years before the discovery of said statistical properties.
Re: Show HN: I modeled the Voynich Manuscript with SBERT to test for structure
#35I strongly believe the manuscript is undecipherable in the sense thats it's all gibberish. I can't prove it, but at this point I think it's more likely than not to be hoax.
Statistical analyses such as this one consistently find patterns that are consistent with a proper language and would be unlikely to have emerged from someone who was just putting gibberish on the page. To get the kinds of patterns these turn up someone would have had to go a large part of the way towards building a full constructed language, which is interesting in its own right.
Personally, I have no preference to any theory about the book; whichever it turns out to be, I'll take it as is.
That said, I just watched a video about the practice of "speaking in tongues" that some christian congregations practice. From what I understand, it's a practice where believers speak in gibberish for certain rituals.
Studying these "speeches", researches found patterns and rhythms that the speakers followed without even being aware they exist.
I'm not saying that's what's happening here, but maybe if this was a hoax (or a prank), maybe these patterns emerged just because they were inscribed by a human brain? At best, these patterns can be thought of as shadows of the patterns found in the writers mother tongue?
Re: Show HN: I modeled the Voynich Manuscript with SBERT to test for structure
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
> would be unlikely to have emerged from someone who was just putting gibberish on the page People often assert this, but I'm unsure of any evidence. If I wrote a manuscript in a pretend language, I would expect it to end up with language-like patterns, some automatically and some intentionally. Humans aren't random number generators, and they aren't stupid. Therefore, the implicit claim that a human could not create…
For some reason your comment reminds me of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisencolinensinainciusol - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fU-wH8SrFro
Or Dead Can Dance, e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEVPYVpzMRA .
It's harder to generate good gibberish than it appears at first.
Re: Show HN: I modeled the Voynich Manuscript with SBERT to test for structure
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
> would be unlikely to have emerged from someone who was just putting gibberish on the page People often assert this, but I'm unsure of any evidence. If I wrote a manuscript in a pretend language, I would expect it to end up with language-like patterns, some automatically and some intentionally. Humans aren't random number generators, and they aren't stupid. Therefore, the implicit claim that a human could not create…
Creating gibberish with the statistical properties of a natural language is a very hard task if you do this hundreds of years before the discovery of said statistical properties.
Why?
Re: Show HN: I modeled the Voynich Manuscript with SBERT to test for structure
#38I strongly believe the manuscript is undecipherable in the sense thats it's all gibberish. I can't prove it, but at this point I think it's more likely than not to be hoax.
There are many aspects that point to the text not being completely random or clumsily written. In particular it doesn't fall into many faults you'd expect from some non-expert trying to come up with a fake text.
The age of the document can be estimated through various methods that all point to it being ~500 year old. The vellum parchment, the ink, the pictures (particularly clothes and architecture) are perfectly congruent with that.
The weirdest part is that the script has a very low number of different signs, fewer than any known language. That's about the only clue that could point to a hoax afaik.
Re: Show HN: I modeled the Voynich Manuscript with SBERT to test for structure
#39Wasn't it already deciphered, though? https://www.researchgate.net/publication/368991190_The_Voyni...
Most agree that this is not a real solution. Many of the pages translate to nonsense using that scheme, and some of the figures included in the paper don't actually come from the Voynich manuscript in the first place.
For more info, see https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-3940-post-53738.html#pid537...
Re: Show HN: I modeled the Voynich Manuscript with SBERT to test for structure
#40The best work on Voynich has been done by Emma Smith, Coons and Patrick Feaster, about loops and QOKEDAR and CHOLDAIIN cycles. Here's a good presentation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCWJzTX6y9M Zattera and Roe have also done good work on the "slot alphabet". That so many are making progression in the same direction is quite encouraging! https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-4327-post-60796.html#pid607... is the main…
[deleted]