The opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth.

Niels Bohr, a founder of quantum theory, was known for stressing complementarity: the idea that seemingly incompatible descriptions (such as wave and particle pictures) can both be necessary to account for physical phenomena. The remark about “profound truth” is widely associated with this intellectual milieu—Bohr’s habit of warning against overly simple either/or thinking in domains where concepts strain against the limits of language and classical intuition. It is often quoted in discussions of quantum mechanics and philosophy of science to capture Bohr’s view that deep insights may come in mutually tensioned pairs rather than as a single, unopposed proposition.

Bohr contrasts “profound” truths with trivial ones. A trivial truth has a straightforward negation that is simply false; but a profound truth may be so rich or context-dependent that its apparent opposite can also illuminate reality. The line points to the limits of binary logic when dealing with complex systems, paradoxes, or complementary frameworks. In science, it suggests that competing models can each be valid within their domains of applicability; in broader thought, it cautions that wisdom may require holding two tensions at once—recognizing that contradiction can signal depth rather than error.

1) “The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth.”
2) “The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false; the opposite of a profound truth may be another profound truth.”