Hmm. I don't recall saying the word "proof," or seeing that word in our Occam's Razor article. Recall that we are talking about the "simplest explanation". The simplest explanation when looking at a plane is that it is a plane.
There are two explanations for seeing a flat horizon. One is that the earth is indeed flat. The other is it isn't but any a curve cannot be perceived at ground level because of the scale.
Either is equally possible. The fact you can't see a curve from an airplane which greatly extends the distance you can see and your field of view illustrates that we could be on a much smaller globe and still not be able to perceive a curve. To work out which of the two possibilities is correct one must look at other evidence.
The think about Occam's razor is that it is just a guiding principle, it's not a hard fact which should be blindly adhered to.
And there is no objective measure of how "simple" an idea is anyway.
Because we don't?
https://wiki.tfes.org/High_Altitude_Photographs
Actually, that isn't a bad answer. Although it's strange, then, that I have seen a load of YouTube videos and posts on here claiming their is no curve. I've never seen a Flat Earther jump in and correct them to say "actually, there is a curve and this is why".
I'm interested about your model of the sun but maybe I'll start another thread about that.
That doesn't seem to have anything to do with this thread. The number of RE'ers to FE'ers here is about 100 to 1. I can't get back to everyone.
This board is not that busy though. Your answer to sunset and clouds lit from underneath is "perspective". You go on about empirical evidence, I provided some showing that you cannot explain clouds lit from below that way, that is not how perspective or shadows work. If you are serious about developing a coherent flat earth theory then you should be engaging with this sort of stuff. The perception is that you and other flat earthers just run away from the debate when are unable to answer the questions or are shown to be wrong. The fact you've ignored all my other questions rather reinforces that although I accept those questions are not related to this thread.
To respond more directly to the Occam's Razor Wiki entry:
Your eyes aren't "playing tricks on you", they are simply limited in resolution.
The NASA one is just silly. I could equally say is it simpler to think that the airline industry can build a machine made of metal weighing 1,265,000 pounds (A380) and then get it to fly thousands of miles carrying people in comfort and with machines in each seat where people can access thousands of hours of entertainment or is the simplest explanation that they really can't do all of that stuff? I honestly don't know how the A380 gets off the ground. I understand about lift but those things are MASSIVE and it always amazes me they fly. But they do. I've been on one. Just because you don't understand rocket science, doesn't make it impossible.
The frame of reference one is silly. If you step off a building from your point of view it looks like the ground accelerates towards you. To literally everyone else watching they see you accelerating towards the ground. And it's a bit rich sneering at gravitons when you look at all the things Flat Earth can't explain - what powers UA, 'Dark Energy'. That has been observed, has it?
The sun one is silly too. Again, frames of reference. And 1,000 seems like a lot but...oh, other people have done the maths around that, the force of centripedal acceleration is there but not enough so's you'd notice.
And the universe one...I'd say the simplest explanation is that all the astronomers in the world over the last few hundred years since telescopes got good are probably right. The scale of the universe may blow your mind, it blows mine too. But that is what our observations tell us.