zlacker

>>Grogna+(OP)
> The aim is not to formalise or put into code all the law, because that would make no sense, but we are interested in the law that is already executed automatically, such as the calculation of social benefits, tax or unemployment.

Can anyone explain why it's believed this "would make no sense"?

>>sublin+4h
Basically, all human knowledge is an application of either math or philosophy, and law is philosophy, so cant be modeled by math

>>samrus+Zl
> Basically, all human knowledge is an application of either math or philosophy

Philosophy is not knowledge, it's pure speculation.

> law is philosophy, so cant be modeled by math

Law is not philosophy unless it was written based on sloppy speculations. In other words, what law is, depends on how it was written, it can certainly be modeled by logic and math methods can be developed for it too.

It's nothing new, lawyers have to master logic as part of their training.

>>bigbad+7n
Modelling intent, with math, is not going to happy. Law is based around the intent of those taking actions, and understanding intent is absolutely philosophy.

>>shakna+Gn
Understanding intent is understanding interest and that's not philosophy. If it's not about interest, it's psychiatry - not philosophy either.

Besides, only a lesser part of law is about intent, the major part is about punishing and avoiding harm, finding the true facts and applying the written law to them.

Down-voting can't change the truth, we've been led by the nose for far too long.