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 Lucy Timbrell, Matt Grove, Eleanor Scerri
Year 2026
Publisher Journal of Paleolithic Archaeology
Kind of work article
Discipline Archaeology
Applied false
Read it at the publisher 10.1007/s41982-026-00255-4
Archaeological typologies are used to determine the number and diversity of artefact forms within a prehistoric toolkit. However, objective classification is challenging, complicating cross-assemblage comparisons. We explore the potential of latent class modelling (LCM) for grouping stone tools based on their morphological and technological attributes. LCM identifies unobserved ('latent') subgroups that share certain observed characteristics, producing posterior probabilities of artefact membership to latent classes. Applied to a large dataset of Middle Stone Age and Middle Palaeolithic lithics from northern Africa and Arabia, we compare LCM results with the original typological assessment of each artefact as well as hierarchical clustering, another non-model based unsupervised technique of group classification. Our results show that, although both methods are equally (in)coherent with the original typology, LCM can group artefacts with important technological and morphological characteristics, such as diverse bifacially worked pieces and different types of unretouched Levallois products. We further evaluate LCM performance using permutation tests, which highlight that our model fits the observed data substantially better than any randomly generated structure. Using latent class proportions, we then quantify technological diversity robustly across varying sample sizes. Assemblage-level diversity patterns indicate that northern African MSA toolkits are generally variable, with only a limited number of assemblages departing significantly from null expectations. Overall, LCM offers a transparent, probabilistic framework for capturing the polythetic nature of stone tool assemblages.
To test whether latent class modelling provides a more objective way of grouping stone tools than traditional typology, and to use it to quantify technological diversity within stone-tool assemblages.
1,334 complete stone tools from 20 Middle Stone Age and Middle Palaeolithic sites in northern Africa and Arabia.
Eight manifest morphological and technological variables (e.g., laminarity, convexity, edge type, retouch) were used to fit latent class models compared against the original typological assignments and against hierarchical clustering, with model fit assessed via information criteria and permutation tests.
Latent class modelling found five statistically supported classes and showed that the traditional 'retouched flake' category, covering over 60% of the assemblage, is a poorly defined, heterogeneous grouping rather than a coherent technological category.
The finding shows that a widely used artifact category is not a clean distinction at all, while a different way of grouping the same parts recovers a more coherent classification structure for the whole assemblage.
Patterns it shows D, S
Added 2026-09-28
How to cite this Lucy Timbrell, Matt Grove, Eleanor Scerri (2026). Assessing the Potential of Latent Class Modelling for Classifying Stone Artefacts and the Quantification of Technological Diversity. Journal of Paleolithic Archaeology.