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 Wen A, Hock A, Carver B, Ortega A, Corsi P, Jordan J, Nicholson A, Cabrera L, Cabrera D
Year 2022
Publisher Journal of Systems Thinking 2(1):1-29
Kind of work article
Read it at the publisher 10.54120/jost.000060
Policymakers have an important role in the comprehension and creation of adequate political agendas that meet the needs of their constituency. Regardless of their specific field, all policymakers face decision making challenges each day. This paper seeks to understand and address how individuals in the policy field view the policy making process and what frameworks they use to help them make decisions. A PRISMA literature review and survey of policy professionals was conducted to determine what frameworks policy makers use (if any), why, and whether they perceived them as effective. Results of the study reveal that framework use increases with education level and that SWOT and CBA (cost-benefit analysis) are chief among the frameworks used although they fall short of capturing the complexities of the types of systems in which policy makers intervene.The discussion offers the Agent Based Approach (ABA) as a possible solution to the opaque and non- comprehensive nature of mainstream policy frameworks such as SWOT, CBA, and others. Our discussion showcases the universality of the ABA approach, and sets it apart from other approaches that fail to account for complex adaptive systems (CAS).
Patterns it shows D, S, R, P
How to cite this Wen A, Hock A, Carver B, Ortega A, Corsi P, Jordan J, Nicholson A, Cabrera L, Cabrera D (2022). Framework Effectiveness and Prevalence in Public Policy. Journal of Systems Thinking 2(1):1-29.