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 Zalasiewicz, Jan and Williams, Mark and Smith, Alan and Barry, Tiffany L. and Coe, Angela L. and Bown, Paul R. and Brenchley, Patrick and Cantrill, David and Gale, Andrew and Gibbard, Philip and Gregory, F. John and Hounslow, Mark W. and Kerr, Andrew C. and Pearson, Paul and Knox, Robert and Powell,
Year 2008
Publisher GSA Today 18(2), 4–8
Kind of work article
Discipline Geology
Secondary disciplines Environment & Sustainability
Applied false
Read it at the publisher 10.1130/GSAT01802A.1
To assess on stratigraphic grounds whether the current interval of human-driven global change can be treated as a formal geological epoch.
Stratigraphic argument drawing on biotic, sedimentary and geochemical evidence of change since the Industrial Revolution.
The authors argue that since the Industrial Revolution Earth has changed enough to leave a stratigraphic signature distinct from the Holocene and earlier Pleistocene interglacials, with novel biotic, sedimentary and geochemical changes. They hold that a Holocene–Anthropocene boundary could be defined either by a Global Stratotype Section and Point or by a numerical date, and that formal adoption depends largely on its usefulness to scientists working on late Holocene successions.
A group of stratigraphers asks whether recent human impact has left a record distinct enough in the rock layers to mark a new geological epoch, and concludes that it plausibly has.
The case turns on drawing a boundary: the Holocene is distinguished from what follows by a signature present in the strata and absent below. That is the distinction pattern in a working scientific form, including the choice between a physical marker and a numerical date. Other patterns are not carried by the argument. It is also a single position paper and not a test of anything.
Patterns it shows D
Shows the structure is there
Added 2026-10-20
How to cite this Zalasiewicz, Jan and Williams, Mark and Smith, Alan and Barry, Tiffany L. and Coe, Angela L. and Bown, Paul R. and Brenchley, Patrick and Cantrill, David and Gale, Andrew and Gibbard, Philip and Gregory, F. John and Hounslow, Mark W. and Kerr, Andrew C. and Pearson, Paul and Knox, Robert and Powell, (2008). Are we now living in the Anthropocene?. GSA Today 18(2), 4–8.