This may be quite true in general. I don’t know enough math to say otherwise. But human laws are written in human languages, not in the precise language of math. The ambiguity comes out of the words of the law itself.
With human laws, we have lots of empirical evidence. Over and over again, societies have come up with many systems of law which have purported to be complete and unambiguous, or at least interpretable. Controversies and ambiguities always come up anyway. Judges and lawmakers have tried to stop these leaks by adding new laws, prophylactic regulations, and commentary—again expressed in human language. And so the cycle repeats itself, and the law metastasizes, without ever eliminating all controversy and ambiguity.
I don’t think that in order to describe (or prescribe for) a complex system you necessarily need a complex specification.
This may be quite true in general. I don’t know enough math to say otherwise. But human laws are written in human languages, not in the precise language of math. The ambiguity comes out of the words of the law itself.
With human laws, we have lots of empirical evidence. Over and over again, societies have come up with many systems of law which have purported to be complete and unambiguous, or at least interpretable. Controversies and ambiguities always come up anyway. Judges and lawmakers have tried to stop these leaks by adding new laws, prophylactic regulations, and commentary—again expressed in human language. And so the cycle repeats itself, and the law metastasizes, without ever eliminating all controversy and ambiguity.
P.S. It occurs to me that laws are leaky generalizations