초기 양자역학 이론과 인과관계 - 닐스 보어의 이론과 한스 벨첼의 접점에 대한 試論 -

As an academic discipline, modern physics faculty and law schools have little in common. The causal theory of the law school system still remains at the level of classical physics, and although modern quantum physics continues to develop, the results of that development are not shared with law school scholars. Niels Bohr's quantum theory and his own concept of complementarity have achieved numerous achievements in explaining quantum motion in the field of modern quantum physics, which is distinct from classical physics, and still have a great influence on modern quantum physics. Since the causal theory of classical physics does not apply in the microscopic area of atoms, a new concept “complementarity” was introduced by Niels Bohr. Furthermore, he suggested the possibility that this concept of complementarity could be valid in the macroscopic area of reality as well. It is believed that the framework of complementarity in the mental area has some commonalities with the 1931 study by criminal law scholar Hans Welzel. Hans Welzel believed that causality as ontology can be optional to one's intention. In the causal relations he accepted only the existing Bedingungstheorie (Äquivalenztheorie), and the Adäquanztheorie is excluded. In the objective Zurechnung, only the Karl Larenz's theory was selected. However, in the Hans Welzel's big picture of causality, the causal relations that connects the causal action and the result of the action functions only as an optionally applicable element in the framework of the intention and the progress of the event. Therefore, since the intention plays a central role, it should be understood that it could be done in line with Karl Larenz's objective Zurechmung based on Hegelian interpretation. And, as Niels Bohr argued, the concept of complementarity applied in the realm of quantum mechanics and atomic nuclei has the potential to be applied in the macroscopic realm as well. As Niels Bohr himself gave as an example, an appropriate interpretation of complementarity in the area of ​​crime seems to be also possible. However, Hans Welzel, who was free from the concept of complementarity from the beginning, provides similar results as Niels Bohr's in the analysis of “I” so it can be said that their opinions have similarities even if the concept of complementarity is excluded.