It means that it would be weird for there to not be interesting patterns all over the place, as you suggest. This is, however, subtly different from there being such patterns. In particular, the first one is stated independent from the effort it would require to find them, while the latter includes it.

In other words, maybe the right want to understand this is via intuitionistic logic where not (not A) is not convertible to A. So, it's certainly not the case that there are no interesting patterns... but you must show me one before I believe that they actually do exist.