Occam's Razor itself actually says that you mustn't multiply entities beyond necessity. It gives no clues as to the necessity and so is, IM[not very popular it seems]O, absolutely of no worth.
Of course if you can prove whether an entity is necessary to describe an outcome then you've no use of Occam's Razor, so it seems rather to excise itself from being useful.
Ockham basically meant that the "simplest" explanation that fits the facts is the most likely. And as a matter of fact, we do have a precise definition for "simplicity": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov_complexity
Anyway, it all boils down to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_probability , with what we commonly call "Occam's prior". Probability theory is wonderful, but to use it, you have to start from a set of prior probabilities. When you have zero knowledge, starting with probabilities "inversely proportional" to Kolmogorov complexity seems the most reasonable thing to do.
Occam tells you nothing of truth. It simply says that your knowledge of a situation may be limited. Which seems as close to truism as any aphorism could get.
I'll say it again: Occam's Razor (as told by Ponce at least) has nothing to say on whether one knows the truth. Neither whether one has simplified sufficiently nor if one has failed to add a necessary entity.
You appear to say here that the ability to calculate the Kolmogorov complexity, K, is necessary to establish the simplicity of a given form/function/algorithm/state and so is an entity essential to applying Occam's razor. However, we know that we can't calculate K in all situations and so, it seems, Occam's razor as modified by your requirement to determine the simplest explanation is itself insufficient.
>When you have zero knowledge, starting with probabilities "inversely proportional" to Kolmogorov complexity seems the most reasonable thing to do.
For example, take the current situation with particle physics. It looks like particle soup, very complex, varied interactions. But more knowledge - perhaps entities which currently appear unnecessary to create a working theory - could well precipitate a far simpler theoretical model that revolutionised the analysis of particles and their interactions (a fully working unifying string theory maybe).
To recapitulate, Kolmogrov complexity appears to assume that you know everything and therefore are certain that you're providing the best simplification. You don't and you're not. Occam's Razor has no truth generating/revealing ability.
As I'm sure is clear I've not studied Kolmogorov or BLC before. WRT Occam's Prior how do you judge the K of different entity types (like are more spatial dimensions somehow less complex than more axiomatic constants).
Of course if you can prove whether an entity is necessary to describe an outcome then you've no use of Occam's Razor, so it seems rather to excise itself from being useful.