The Universal & Atomic Elements of Organization
A falsifiable scientific theory proposing that the same irreducible structures organize both thought and reality — from the quantum to the social scale.
O-Theory proposes that four irreducible structures — Distinctions, Systems, Relationships and Perspectives (DSRP) — form the universal grammar of organization. Rather than being merely useful ways of thinking, these structures are hypothesized to be the atomic elements from which every organized phenomenon emerges, whether in cognition, biology, physics, mathematics, society, or the cosmos.
| D | S | R | P |
| Distinctions | Systems | Relationships | Perspectives |
| Identity ↔ Other | Part ↔ Whole | Action ↔ Reaction | Point ↔ View |
| D := (i ↔ o) | S := (p ↔ w) | R := (a ↔ r) | P := (ṗ ↔ v) |
This is a living scientific evidence compendium: an open, continually evolving collection of independent empirical research, formal theory, mathematical proofs, cross-disciplinary analyses, applications, critiques, and proposed falsifications. Every entry is included because it supports, refines, challenges, or attempts to falsify the theory.
Scientific theories are strengthened not only by evidence that confirms their predictions, but also by surviving attempts to falsify them. This compendium brings both together: independent evidence from researchers who were not testing DSRP and proposed counterexamples evaluated against the formal theory.
One counterexample is enough to falsify O-Theory. Until then, the question remains: do the same four structures organize everything from quantum systems to human thought?
Independent convergence is one of the strongest forms of scientific evidence because researchers arrive at the same conclusion while investigating different questions for different reasons.
The number is not the point. Researchers in different fields, studying different questions with different methods, repeatedly arrived at the same structural predictions—almost always without testing DSRP or using its language.
Try a different term or clear the filters.
This compendium began as the peer-reviewed literature review “A Literature Review of the Universal and Atomic Elements of Complex Cognition,” published in the Journal of Systems Thinking with 109 studies. That paper is the peer-reviewed foundation. What you see here is its living, continuously updated version . New studies are checked before they are added, and the collection now holds and keeps growing. Open any card to see what the researchers found, why it bears on DSRP, and where the original review discusses it, the fuller account.
The collection is updated continuously, so the citation carries the date you consulted it rather than a study count — the count changes weekly, and putting it in the reference would make the same collection look like a different work to everyone who cites it. To cite a single claim or study, use its own address: every one has a permanent link.
This is the adversarial half of the compendium. Where the evidence track asks what converges on DSRP, this one asks what would end it: a single organized phenomenon whose structure needs a fifth pattern, a ninth element, or a fifth structural dynamic. It holds written up from candidates across territories, and resolutions — the general answers those cases settle against. Every case is published whether it held or failed, including the ones still open.
Cite this rather than the evidence collection when the point is what survived attack. The two are separate works with separate addresses: one asks what converges on the theory, the other asks what would end it, and a reference to the first does not support a claim about the second. Case and resolution numbers change when the record is revised, so cite a case by its own permanent link rather than by number.
This collection is meant to keep growing. Send us a study, paper, book or critique that bears on DSRP, whether it supports the theory or cuts against it, and we will read it and decide whether it belongs.
Authors Montoro et al.
Year 2014
Publisher Consciousness and Cognition
Discipline Cognitive Science
Read it at the publisher 10.1016/j.concog.2014.01.004
To explore the unconscious nature of some forms of grouping.
When masked, priming is not noticed by the subjects They concluded that their results demonstrated that there doesn’t need to be an aspect of consciousness in order to perceptually group something. There is an uncontrollable nature to Gestalt grouping.
This is notable in its similarity to the four patterns of mind —DSRP—that are happening within every thought one has, without their control. Note, the awareness of such patterns is of equal importance to their existence.
Montoro et. al. 2014 wrote on the subconsciousness of grouping, specifically Gestalt grouping that offers that the whole is more than the sum of its parts. They did two experiments, the first one was on grouping by proximity. They took 38 undergraduate students and had them complete two tasks: a masked priming task and a prime visibility discrimination task. For the masked priming task, the students completed a “forced-choice reaction time” task. They were told that they would see target lines displayed on the screen, and that they would then have to indicate either the vertical or horizontal orientation by pressing one of two buttons as fast as possible but to avoid making mistakes. For the prime visibility discrimination task, the participants were told to pay attention to the prime stimulus that was displayed between two masks, and to perform a “forced-choice discrimination” task indicating the horizontal or vertical orientation of that stimulus. They asked the participants afterwards what patterns they had seen on the screen before the experiment began, and none of the participants said that they had seen any horizontal or vertical patterns. This means they weren’t aware of the priming. However, the priming significantly influenced the speed and accuracy of their reaction time. However, in the forced grouping task, the analyzed results showed that the subjects weren’t able to see the grouping patterns when they were masked.
For the second experiment, the focus was to test grouping by similarity. This experiment had 38 undergraduate students as the participants. “The stimuli and apparatus were identical to those of Experiment 1, with the sole exception that the Gestalt patterns consisted of a 6x array, forming rows or columns with elements of identical luminance.” Otherwise, the procedure and design was identical. The second experiment also concluded that there was a significant effect of priming, and the subjects also were not aware of their priming. For the forced grouping task, their analysis was the same as the first experiment. When masked, priming is not noticed by the subjects. They concluded that their results demonstrated that there doesn’t need to be an aspect of consciousness in order to perceptually group something. Overall, the article makes the point that there is an uncontrollable nature to Gestalt grouping. This is notable in its similarity to the four patterns of mind —DSRP—that are happening within every
10 A type of statistical test.
thought one has, without their control. Note, the awareness of such patterns is of equal importance to their existence.
Patterns it shows S
How to cite this Montoro et al. (2014). Subliminal Gestalt grouping: Evidence of perceptual grouping by proximity and similarity in absence of conscious perception. Consciousness and Cognition.