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 MacGill V
Year 2024
Publisher Journal of Systems Thinking 4(1):1-28
Kind of work article
Discipline Psychology
Reading level technical
Kind of engagement scholarly
Read it at the publisher 10.54120/jost.2025-0064VM
As much as we try to live without violence, it remains embedded in our lives. Every day on the television, we see the destruction caused by our violence. Explanations of the causes of violence have typically been biological, psychological, or social, each revealing part of the story. This paper uses the author’s Dynamics of Life model to demonstrate underlying dynamical tensions that enable life processes that manifest in different ways at each of the three levels. The levels then interact with each other. We analyse the tensions to reveal how abuse and violence arise in human behaviour. The biological level is based around the body and how it is used to change situations. The psychological is about learning to regulate emotion and improve thinking patterns. The first part of the social level looks at two-people dynamics before exploring societal patterns and how structural violence arises. A list of strategies to help reduce levels of abuse and violence follows, and the paper ends with a summary and conclusion.
A paper applying the author's Dynamics of Life model to violence at three interacting levels — biological, psychological, and social.
Dynamical tensions at each level, and between levels, explain how abuse and violence arise — from two-person dynamics to structural violence — and yield strategies for reducing both.
Uses the author's Dynamics of Life model to analyze how violence arises at the biological, psychological and social levels.
Applies MacGill's Dynamics of Life model to violence across biological, psychological and social levels, and to the tensions between them. MacGill has also used DSRP directly to define violence in structural terms, so the two records are the same author working the same problem through different frames.
Patterns it shows S, R
How to cite this MacGill V (2024). A Systems-Based Analysis of Human Violence. Journal of Systems Thinking 4(1):1-28.