God plays dice and Occam’s razor

Rabbi Michael, Shalom Rav.. In your book “God Plays Dice” you wrote in Appendix B (at the beginning) an argument against Buchler (who opposed actualism and supported informativism) that if it is more logical that in the absence of a possibility to decide the dispute between actualism and informativism, it seems that we should choose actualism, since the principle of Occam’s razor instructs us to choose the option in which the number of entities is as small as possible. My question is – isn’t it better according to the principle to follow informativism because it tries to arrive at comprehensive theories and is much more “economical”?
2. In the book “God Plays Dice,” you wrote on page 92 that there are three types of evidence for the existence of God and that Kant also classified it into three types of proof, while in the source you referred to, Kant only speaks of evidence from morality. Does he prove only from morality or does he have other proofs? The source you gave does not show any other proofs from Kant. (Source – Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, “Transcendental Fundamentals”, Part Two, Division Two, Section Three, mainly in Chapters 3-6)