Lots of things have never been, that doesn't make them a bad idea.
Your example is in the real world where there are things like weather and other variables that can't be accounted for. It's necessary for law to be based on common sense in such an environment.
But why can't we imagine removing this element of ambiguity? In a computer system you can account for all variables and completely define the environment. This would make interpretation of the law much easier which is surely a good thing.
But this kind of thing needs formal verification to work properly, which we are not good at. Trying to do it without formal verification is silly. But the broader idea is by no means "childish".
I can't imagine removing this element of ambiguity because programs are not perfect. They are a representation of some mental process, and they frequently contain mistakes. They are also, as you admit, unable to capture states of the real world accurately. Unless your smart contract is unrelated to the real world (in which case, why bother with it?) this will be a problem.
The idea with formal verification is it would make it possible and feasible to prove a program is correct. But this is a hypothetical and until that is possible it doesn't really work. It might never be possible. So today I do agree with you. It just turns into a game of "ha-ha, you didn't read the contract closely enough!"