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 Melanie Habermann, Ashkaan K. Fahimipour, Justin D. Yeakel, Thilo Gross
Year 2026
Publisher Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Kind of work article
Discipline Ecology
Secondary disciplines Network Science
Applied false
Read it at the publisher 10.1073/pnas.2521927123
When studying a complex system, it is often useful to think of the system as a network of interacting units. One can then ask if some properties of the entire network are already explained by a small part of the network, a network motif. A famous example of an ecological motif is exploitative competition in food webs, where the presence of two species competing for a shared resource precludes the existence of a stable equilibrium for the whole system. However, other examples of motifs with such direct impacts on stability are not known. Here, we show why small motifs that allow conclusions on systemic stability are rare. More importantly, we show that another dynamical property, reactivity, is typically rooted in motifs. Computing the reactivity of motifs can reveal which parts of a network are prone to respond violently to perturbations. This highlights motif reactivity as a useful property to measure in real-world systems to understand likely modes of systemic failure in food webs or other networks in epidemics, supply chains, or power grids.
To determine whether small network motifs can explain system-level dynamical properties, focusing on reactivity (how strongly a whole network responds immediately after a perturbation) rather than only long-term stability.
Theoretical and computational analysis of network motifs (units of two or three interacting nodes) in food-web and generic network models.
Mathematical and computational analysis computing the reactivity of small network motifs and testing how much of a whole network's reactivity is explained by its motifs, contrasted with motifs' limited power to predict long-term stability.
Small motifs of just two or three interacting units account for a substantial share of a network's reactivity, its immediate response to a perturbation, even though such motifs rarely determine a network's long-term stability.
A whole system's immediate behavior under stress is largely explained by small interacting parts nested within it, and shocks propagate outward from those parts through the network's connections.
Patterns it shows S, R
Added 2026-09-26
How to cite this Melanie Habermann, Ashkaan K. Fahimipour, Justin D. Yeakel, Thilo Gross (2026). Functional motifs in food webs and networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.