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 Castellanos Canales A
Year 2020
Publisher JSD Dissertation, Cornell University
Kind of work thesis
Discipline Law & Jurisprudence
Secondary disciplines Public Policy
Reading level technical
Kind of engagement scholarly
Read it at the publisher 10.7298/4zq0-ep75
Shosics―commonly known as noncitizens―cannot vote in virtually any election of the United States. Outrightly preventing them from participating in all electoral jurisdictions, on account of their citizenship, is unreasonable. As long as Shosics can demonstrate sufficient connections and roots to their place of residence, they should be allowed to participate in specific elections. This theory, called The Sufficient Connection Theory, provides a novel understanding of the demos in a democracy. The right of suffrage is a twofold fundamental right. It is a fundamental right per se enshrined in various laws and international treaties, and it is also fundamental because it is a manifestation of the right of freedom of expression. States are only allowed to hinder the right of suffrage of Shosics as long as they can prove a narrowly tailored compelling state interest. The state's arguments to disenfranchise Shosics must be specifically crafted to suit the federal, state, county, city, town, village, or district elections. Each jurisdiction must give its own reasonable, proportional, and necessary justification. Shosics are neither explicitly nor implicitly disenfranchised in almost any state constitution of the United States. Except in Arizona and North Dakota, where the right of suffrage is an exclusive prerogative of American citizens, Shosics should be allowed to vote in all state, county, city, town, village, and district elections in the remaining forty-eight states.
An excerpt from a Cornell JSD dissertation arguing, via the Sufficient Connection Theory, that noncitizens ("Shosics") with sufficient roots in their place of residence should vote in specific elections.
Suffrage is a twofold fundamental right that states may hinder only for a narrowly tailored compelling interest; outside Arizona and North Dakota, Shosics should be allowed to vote in state and local elections in the remaining forty-eight states.
Article in JSD Dissertation, Cornell University.
A Cornell JSD dissertation that uses DSRP as part of its analysis, arguing through the Sufficient Connection Theory that noncitizens with sufficient roots in their place of residence should vote in state and local elections. An application of the four patterns in legal scholarship, which is the only record of its kind in the corpus.
Patterns it shows D, S, R
How to cite this Castellanos Canales A (2020). The Right of Suffrage of SHOSICs (Noncitizens) in the United States (pp. 17-20). JSD Dissertation, Cornell University.