Is uncertainty per se and the ether, however defined, observable, recordable, intersubjective phenomena? And is deduction a useful method when dealing with empirical phenomena? Would induction be more suitable?
That is where one can start Strykerd. Let's select a phenomena that is intersubjectively experienceable directly via our human senses (there are at least 18) and/or via the technological extensions of our senses (microscopes, telescopes, spectrometers, mass spectrometers, etc.).
Then we can describe accurately and agree on the presence of a particular phenomena be it a person, object, process, event, or other or the interrelations and connectedness between all and any of these.
Then the impossible part. Make as complete an explanation of the phenomena selecting, of course, from the many diverse points of view and levels of explanations that are possible to fruitfully investigate. For example, personal, impersonal, collective, systematic, systemic, political, economic, social, religious, moral, ethical, etc. points of view and the quantum, sub-atomic, atomic, "physical," physiochemical, chemical, biochemical, biological, neurological, psychological, "spiritual", geological, topographical. ecological, geographical, climatological, meteorological, astronomical, other, combinations of these, etc. levels of explanations.
We pick a phenomena, a point of view and a level of explanation and apply Occam's Razor to the explanations given to those specific selections. Of course, if we keep the same phenomena, but alter the point of view and level of explanation selected, a different explanation will emerge for the same phenomena (see examples below). Those different explanations though will not be contradictory but be equally of use when using the related point of view and level of explanation.
Then we come to the always occurring phenomena of deciding which explanation is best among two or more explanations that arise when trying to explain a phenomena from the same point of view and same level of explanation.
For example, how do I explain my seeing the color yellow? My seeing the color yellow is the phenomena. Now we can pick the point of view and level of explanation.
1. Personal View and Personal Experiential Level of Explanation - I see the color yellow because I can and do see yellow when I look at a banana, or yellow post-it notes, or daffodils when they are in front of me.
3. Impersonal Biochemical View - Physical Biochemical Level of Explantation - How light stimulates protein isomerization within the photoreceptor rods located in the retina and stops there without going into the transmission of neuro-chemical reactions across the synaptic clefts of neurons. See ultra simple explanation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fm45A4yjmvo and a more detailed complex one of the same processes here: http://www.chemistry.wustl.edu/~edudev/LabTutorials/Vision/Vision.html
Occam's Razor says, take the simpler one.
However, there is actually only one explanation for each different point of view and different level of explanation. No need to choose between the three because in order to apply Occam's Razor, one has to have two or more different explanations for each point of view and level of explanation. Since there are not two or more distinctly different explanations (just simple and complex versions of the same explanation), there is only one choice.
Why? because the others are no longer presented. They have been sent to the rubbish bin of ideas.
For example, here is an old view of how vision works and how color is seen. The author is a Greek dude named Plato who wrote this around 360 B.C.:
First, then, the gods, imitating the spherical shape of the universe, enclosed the two divine courses in a spherical body, that, namely, which we now term the head, being the most divine part of us and the lord of all that is in us: to this the gods, when they put together the body, gave all the other members to be servants, considering that it partook of every sort of motion. In order then that it might not tumble about among the high and deep places of the earth, but might be able to get over the one and out of the other, they provided the body to be its vehicle and means of locomotion; which consequently had length and was furnished with four limbs extended and flexible; these God contrived to be instruments of locomotion with which it might take hold and find support, and so be able to pass through all places, carrying on high the dwelling-place of the most sacred and divine part of us. Such was the origin of legs and hands, which for this reason were attached to every man; and the gods, deeming the front part of man to be more honourable and more fit to command than the hinder part, made us to move mostly in a forward direction. Wherefore man must needs have his front part unlike and distinguished from the rest of his body.
And so in the vessel of the head, they first of all put a face in which they inserted organs to minister in all things to the providence of the soul, and they appointed this part, which has authority, to be by nature the part which is in front. And of the organs they first contrived the eyes to give light, and the principle according to which they were inserted was as follows: So much of fire as would not burn, but gave a gentle light, they formed into a substance akin to the light of every-day life; and the pure fire which is within us and related thereto they made to flow through the eyes in a stream smooth and dense, compressing the whole eye, and especially the centre part, so that it kept out everything of a coarser nature, and allowed to pass only this pure element. When the light of day surrounds the stream of vision, then like falls upon like, and they coalesce, and one body is formed by natural affinity in the line of vision, wherever the light that falls from within meets with an external object. And the whole stream of vision, being similarly affected in virtue of similarity, diffuses the motions of what it touches or what touches it over the whole body, until they reach the soul, causing that perception which we call sight. But when night comes on and the external and kindred fire departs, then the stream of vision is cut off; for going forth to an unlike element it is changed and extinguished, being no longer of one nature with the surrounding atmosphere which is now deprived of fire: and so the eye no longer sees, and we feel disposed to sleep. For when the eyelids, which the gods invented for the preservation of sight, are closed, they keep in the internal fire; and the power of the fire diffuses and equalises the inward motions; when they are equalised, there is rest, and when the rest is profound, sleep comes over us scarce disturbed by dreams; but where the greater motions still remain, of whatever nature and in whatever locality, they engender corresponding visions in dreams, which are remembered by us when we are awake and in the external world. And now there is no longer any difficulty in understanding the creation of images in mirrors and all smooth and bright surfaces. For from the communion of the internal and external fires, and again from the union of them and their numerous transformations when they meet in the mirror, all these appearances of necessity arise, when the fire from the face coalesces with the fire from the eye on the bright and smooth surface. And right appears left and left right, because the visual rays come into contact with the rays emitted by the object in a manner contrary to the usual mode of meeting; but the right appears right, and the left left, when the position of one of the two concurring lights is reversed; and this happens when the mirror is concave and its smooth surface repels the right stream of vision to the left side, and the left to the right. Or if the mirror be turned vertically, then the concavity makes the countenance appear to be all upside down, and the lower rays are driven upwards and the upper downwards.
All these are to be reckoned among the second and co-operative causes which God, carrying into execution the idea of the best as far as possible, uses as his ministers. They are thought by most men not to be the second, but the prime causes of all things, because they freeze and heat, and contract and dilate, and the like. But they are not so, for they are incapable of reason or intellect; the only being which can properly have mind is the invisible soul, whereas fire and water, and earth and air, are all of them visible bodies. The lover of intellect and knowledge ought to explore causes of intelligent nature first of all, and, secondly, of those things which, being moved by others, are compelled to move others. And this is what we too must do. Both kinds of causes should be acknowledged by us, but a distinction should be made between those which are endowed with mind and are the workers of things fair and good, and those which are deprived of intelligence and always produce chance effects without order or design. Of the second or co-operative causes of sight, which help to give to the eyes the power which they now possess, enough has been said. I will therefore now proceed to speak of the higher use and purpose for which God has given them to us. The sight in my opinion is the source of the greatest benefit to us, for had we never seen the stars, and the sun, and the heaven, none of the words which we have spoken about the universe would ever have been uttered. But now the sight of day and night, and the months and the revolutions of the years, have created number, and have given us a conception of time, and the power of enquiring about the nature of the universe; and from this source we have derived philosophy, than which no greater good ever was or will be given by the gods to mortal man. This is the greatest boon of sight: and of the lesser benefits why should I speak? even the ordinary man if he were deprived of them would bewail his loss, but in vain. Thus much let me say however: God invented and gave us sight to the end that we might behold the courses of intelligence in the heaven, and apply them to the courses of our own intelligence which are akin to them, the unperturbed to the perturbed; and that we, learning them and partaking of the natural truth of reason, might imitate the absolutely unerring courses of God and regulate our own vagaries. The same may be affirmed of speech and hearing: they have been given by the gods to the same end and for a like reason. For this is the principal end of speech, whereto it most contributes. Moreover, so much of music as is adapted to the sound of the voice and to the sense of hearing is granted to us for the sake of harmony; and harmony, which has motions akin to the revolutions of our souls, is not regarded by the intelligent votary of the Muses as given by them with a view to irrational pleasure, which is deemed to be the purpose of it in our day, but as meant to correct any discord which may have arisen in the courses of the soul, and to be our ally in bringing her into harmony and agreement with herself; and rhythm too was given by them for the same reason, on account of the irregular and graceless ways which prevail among mankind generally, and to help us against them. Source:Timaeus By Plato http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/timaeus.html
Let's apply Occam's Razor. Which explanation is simpler?
