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 Reeves K
Year 2017
Publisher Cornell Policy Review
Kind of work article
Discipline Public Policy
Kind of engagement applications
In the United States, the issue of abortion remains contentious today, despite the Supreme Court decision that legalized the procedure more than forty years ago. Since that 1973 decision, abortion has become a largely political topic; individual states have enacted laws that restrict women's ability to obtain an abortion by varying degrees, and abortion has been a prominent topic during political elections. In the 2016 election cycle, the topic of abortion surfaced in the Presidential and the Vice Presidential debates, as well as many congressional and gubernatorial races. Candidates label themselves based on their abortion stance, and many voters may choose a candidate explicitly because of that stance. Until 1973, laws regulating abortions were left up to the states, and many chose to enact regulations that banned the practice. The majority of these laws targeted those performing the abortions, rather than the women themselves. Prior to 1973, the resultant fear of losing their medical licenses and facing criminal charges meant that few doctors were willing to perform abortions. By the late 1960s, social pressures and the feminist movement pushed states to begin to relax these laws; by 1970, 16 states had created new regulations that allowed women access to legal abortions. In early 1973, the United States Supreme Court heard two cases: Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton; on January 22, 1973, the Court ruled that the 14th amendment protected a woman's right to have an abortion under the Due Process Clause and its interpreted right to privacy. This case forms the basis for all abortion regulations in the United States today.
A Cornell Policy Review examination of the abortion debate in the United States, from pre-1973 state regulation through Roe v. Wade to the politics of the 2016 election cycle.
Since 1973 abortion has become a largely political topic — states restrict access to varying degrees, candidates label themselves by stance, and voters choose accordingly — with Roe forming the basis of all regulation at the time of writing.
A student application of DSRP, from the Cornell Policy Review systems thinking special issues.
Patterns it shows D, S, R, P
How to cite this Reeves K (2017). Choosing a Side: Examining the Abortion Debate. Cornell Policy Review.