Humans are known for outstanding "pattern recognition." However, other organisms discern patterns we don't (e.g., snakes discern infrared and ground vibration patterns). There are more unobserved data patterns than observed ones. So, is it that observation ability is limited and all patterns are real? Or, does observation of a pattern within an ocean of endless possibilities make it real for us?
So, is it that observation ability is limited and all patterns are real? Or, does observation of a pattern within an ocean of endless possibilities make it real for us?
Both of these questions could be answered affirmatively, since the mediating factor for us human animals in our association of pattern-observations with science, is language - so there is the kind of pattern-observation inherent in animal life (including human life), and there is the kind of pattern-observation we associate with science, and commonly refer to. But that last kind is only a subset of the range of pattern-observations we humans actually use. So pattern-observation itself is a real phenomenon, but the kind of pattern-observation we associate with the conduct of science by humans, is really a concept, and even if we grant that it refers to a real "thing", it is at best only a subset of the range of pattern-observations available to us human animals.
What's a pattern?
It's a repetition of a shape, color etc.
So what pattern matching is about is just recognizing that some other thing has similarity to some other thing. This is how the logic works in computer vision as well.
If two or more things have similarities, then why ought they and the similarity not be real? To speculate that similarity does not maybe exist would be counterproductive and theoretical, because many things already happen to rely on the concept of similarity. Therefore it's not a fruitful question, just a hypothetical.
Try doing a simple task that requires pattern recognition. E.g. recognizing an object of which there are many (because such object is from a group of such objects and all such objects have similarities between them, which enables one to recognize them). Without such group recognition a lot of things just become impossible and complicated.
the interpretation of patterns can be a bit more complicated. For example statistical analysis of e.g. questionnaires may use pattern matching for analysis of the results. However, if patterns are used to make other judgements or predictions, then one ought to be cautious about whether the patterns really display the further claims. Or if they do display, then how believable/likely are they?
A pattern is anything that shows repeatedly. It's like redundancy. Try the following: write a program that finds the scheme in a number sequence. For instance: 5,10,15,20 ... First, try out some random operations with the numbers by associating any of them with a random calculation. Then do several of these operations recursively with backtracking and remember the variations already taken in consideration. Then do a matching. A match could be when the calculations result in zero. Then write the combined varied operations into an array list or, if that operation sequence is already in the list, increase it's evaluation score with the sum of the evaluation scores of the elements it was composed of. You start with basic operations and operators, for example small shapes you see. An operator is defined as a pattern associated with a movement. Human beings can imagine motion roughly according to Newton's laws or imagine other transformations, and they can see compositions of small shapes and mentally manipulate them with the operators. For recognizing pictures, use unsharp masking and afterwards sum up the differences compared to the shape that it has to be congruent with pixel for pixel for an evaluation score. The best solution is said to be the solution that processes the most information. This means that the best pattern has the most redundancy or best evaluation score. Like some sort of Ziv-Lempel, associating everything with everything and storing it in an alphabet and try matching the results with the input. Except here it are pictures. It could be text as well. Sorry for being so arrogant and speculative. I might be just a cretin who has the chance to just 'play' computer scientist on the WWW and is talking weird bullshit because their tricks might be their money.
Cause and effect is based on a pattern of correlations. Organisms are patterns, which thrive or decay depending how well they keep their pattern.
There is something measurable, how patterny. A jangling strike of a guitar, versus a harmonic chord. There are lots of mathematical tools for evaluating this, like Fourier analysis, fractal dimension, and entropy. Symmetry is a fundamental preference for us aesthetically, and linked to the deepest principles for understanding in physics.
Pattern is maybe all that anything ever is.
1 A pattern is relative to a description; and we supply the description, which is usually tailored to human interests quite likely in many cases of evolutionary origin. If half the occupants of a street are murdered, one after another on successive nights, this is a pattern. At least the police will think so. But it is only a pattern because we link the occurrences in the light of our interests, our concerns. There are an indefinite number of respects in which the occurrences show no pattern at all so far as we are concerned : the height of the victims or their age or their voting behaviours will be ignored, all else equal. Our interests dictate the patterns we detect. Patterns of occurrence are constructed as patterns in light of our interests. No interest, no description, no pattern.
2 A different type of case is that of 'seeing' patterns in random phenomena. You might present me with a square of paper on which there are hundreds of disorganised dots. I 'see' a face among the dots. The 'face' does not exist in any sense independently of my perceptual patterning.