Found, not invented
In
With this in mind, we may define a pattern as any general planning principle, which states a clear problem that may occur repeatedly in the environment, states the range of contexts in which this problem will occur, and gives the general features required by all buildings or plans which solve this problem.
— Christopher Alexander,
The Oregon Experiment [TOE75], pp. 101–102.
Notice how he claims a pattern states some invariants of a solution. The definition provided here is different because it does not specify the features of the solution to a problem but instead specifies the features of any solution to a clear problem. This indicates many possible solutions. The phrasing guides us to expect a list of criteria any good solution must have. It also points out that our problems need to be clearly defined. Part of the work of the ‘forces’ definition is to provide details on the problem’s root cause.
This is why it’s important to find patterns rather than invent them. An invention is a solution to a problem. Patterns are about solutions to recurring problems, which means you can’t invent a pattern, as you don’t have the same problem over and over again. You solve it once given the problem you face. You solve the same problem the next time by adjusting your solution. This means one person can’t realistically find patterns from their own work. They are inherently unable to verify whether the emergence of the solution is recurrent. It’s possible this nullifies many patterns that claim to have three instances, as the cases might be sequential and not distinct.
This denial of invention was officially recognised by the pattern movement, if not practically carried out.
[…] one thing that has distinguished the patterns community has been its aggressive disregard for originality.
— Brian Foote,
Pattern Languages of Program Design 3 [PLoPD3-97], p. x.
The later books hold up in that they are better curated and contain more patterns of the found variety. But why was it essential to make this statement in the first place? I suppose it was because some community members realised this was a systemic problem hurting the movement. What’s strange to me is how the pattern movement was so strongly related to systems theory, yet it took that long to realise the need to fight back against this detrimental feedback loop.
However, some patterns do feel like inventions: mathematics, bows and arrows, weaving, and the eye. They don’t seem to emerge from the forces naturally. As mentioned, these are complicated solutions, like epiphanies or inventions. But they keep occurring over and over. This is because when you have a set of forces and people working in them, trying to resolve them, or even natural processes such as natural selection, a solution will be attractive, even if it’s not obvious to those absent at the moment of invention.
These inevitable inventions are evocative of pits in a training landscape for AI, where this good fit has little to no gradient towards it. Nonetheless, the solution is a strong attractor around this inconspicuous local minimum. A tiny divot of success.