By Kevin D. Williamson
Tuesday, June 16, 2020
I do not surf, but I sometimes read The Surfer’s
Journal, which contains beautiful photography beautifully printed and
oddball little stories that provide a glimpse into a different world, as with
Scott Hulet’s recent travelogue on surfing through cartel country in Sinaloa.
Similarly, I am not currently in the market for a €1
million-plus wristwatch, but I enjoyed Jack Forster’s recently republished Hodinkee
essay on an incredibly complicated timepiece made by Vacheron Constantin, a
piece of clockwork made with the goal of creating, as Forster puts it, “a
single, harmonious mechanical representation of the astronomical cycles that
dominate the human world from our perspective as inhabitants of the Earth.” I
can just about conceptualize the mechanism by which a mechanical clock tells
time, but I do not have the three-dimensional imagination to put together how a
wristwatch only 43 millimeters across and not very deep can be built to
calculate and display the time, the day and date in a perpetual calendar that
never needs correcting, the phases of the moon, the tides, the relative
positions of Earth, moon, and sun, the progress of the lunar day and lunar
month, the tropical year (the time it physically takes Earth to orbit the sun,
as opposed to a “civil year” of 365 days), the changing times of sunrise and
sunset and the relative hours of light and darkness of the day, solstices and
equinoxes, the “Equation of Time” (“the difference between a mean solar day of
24 hours, and an actual solar day, which thanks to the tilt of the Earth’s
axis, and the eccentricity of its orbit, can vary by as much as −14 minutes and
15 seconds, to +16 minutes, 25 seconds, at various points during the year,”
Forster explains), sidereal time (time as indicated by the stars), and much
more, including such relatively mundane calculations as how many hours of power
the watch has remaining before it needs winding — this is a mechanical
instrument, it bears repeating, not an electronic one. If you are planning on
taking your €1 million-plus timepiece on a jet ski, it is reasonably
water-resistant.
(The vagueness of the pricing, “more than €1 million,” I
noted in an earlier edition: There is an infinity of sums greater than €1
million.)
This is, incredibly enough, not even the most complex
watch ever made, having a mere 16 complications vs. 57 for another made by the
same company, a pocket watch that, among other things, calculates the date for
Yom Kippur on the Hebrew calendar.
These are not objects made with practicality in
mind, and practically everything they do could be done as easily with a
99-cent app on your telephone. They are not useful in the sense that surfing is
not an efficient means of travel. Mechanical watches and clocks are archaic
technology, and like many such outmoded tools, they live on as luxury goods. In
fact, it often is the case that the more outdated a piece of technology is, the
higher its ranking as a luxury good: Classic cars are for people with a little
bit of money, but horses are for people with a lot of money. Jeff Bezos, the
wealthiest man in the world, has been buying up West Texas ranchland.
What is the value of “a single, harmonious mechanical
representation of the astronomical cycles that dominate the human world from
our perspective as inhabitants of the Earth”? I am generally in the camp of
George Mallory, who was asked why he wanted to climb Mount Everest and famously
replied: “Because it’s there.” Dazzling displays of human ingenuity are of
interest and value in their own right, as illustrations and reminders of just
how it was we dragged ourselves up out of the primordial muck and landed on the
moon. Oscar Wilde insisted that “all art is quite useless,” and I mostly agree,
though I reject the generally overlooked part of that formulation: “We can
forgive a man for making a useful thing as long as he does not admire it.” I
know a surprising number of men whose passion in life is not classic sports
cars but classic tractors, and there are few things more useful than a
tractor. But why do we admire those little machines that Forster writes
about so lucidly? They are, in themselves, only gears and springs and such, and
we have grander reifications of human intelligence and ambition than these, if
we want them.
A few years ago (the article seems to have disappeared
into the mists), I wrote a piece for National Review about orreries,
which are little clockwork models of the solar system that were items of
fascination in the Middle Ages and still are collected today. A famous early
one was built by a man known as Giovanni Dondi dell’Orologio. (Lest you think
that agnomen was merely an honorific given to him for his advances in clock
design, know that he was the son of Jacopo Dondi dell’Orologio, a doctor,
astronomer, and clockmaker of Padua, author of De fluxu atque refluxu maris,
an influential work on tides.) Human beings love models: Little boys (and many
grown men) play with model railroads, little girls play with dollhouses, adults
with modest ambitions may sketch out floorplans of houses they would like to
build, adults with less modest ambitions design model cities, and the worst
sort draw up plans for model societies, clockwork utopias in which everything
is rational and orderly.
Orreries and other complex clockworks speak to something
very deep and ancient in us. What was original sin after all but that the idea
that we “should be as gods,” and hold the universe in our hands like a machine of
our own creation, that we can wind or modify at will — that we can perfect?
We cannot perfect ourselves, but we can perfect a trivial bit of machinery, and
that gives us the illusion of omnipotence. It’s magic: In the old legend of
Roger Bacon’s “Brazen Head,” the line between mechanical engineer and wizard
was blurry at best.
The simplest model of the atom could be displayed
accurately as a relatively simple piece of clockwork, a very simple orrery-like
model in which one spherical body orbits another. But the model
is not the real thing, with the electron in orbit around the nucleus like a
little solar system but existing in
a form that can only be described
as a cloud of probability. The electron possesses both kinetic energy and
momentum, yet there is no motion. The cloud is perfectly static. The electron
does not “orbit” the proton at all — it surrounds it like a fog. The most
critical difference between a real electron and a classical particle is that a
real electron does not exist in any one place. All it has is a certain
probability of being here as opposed to there, which the illustration shows
with darker and lighter colors (darker means more probable). If you decided to
catch the electron using some kind of hypothetical scoop, then you could wave
your scoop through the probability cloud and an electron might appear inside it
— and then again, it might not.
The planners and designers need, for their purposes, a
universe that looks like a machine, but the actual universe more closely
resembles a cloud. This is true (or so my physics teachers assured me) at the
quantum level, and it is true at the social level. A machine universe can be
tuned, reconfigured at will, and endlessly engineered. The movements and
development of clouds can be projected only in a very general way and managed
only in a general way. Some people have a gift for blowing smoke rings, and that
is about the best we can do.
A political orientation that accounts for the genuine
complexity of human social life (including the physical reality on which our
social structures are built) must be modest in its expectations and forgo grand
plans to reorganize community life along purportedly rational lines that,
properly understood, are not rational at all. Testimony to our hubris is
everywhere around us, from the coronavirus epidemic to the failure of our city
police departments and the crisis of unfunded liabilities in pensions and
entitlement programs.
There is not a single, harmonious mechanical representation of the forces that dominate the human world. The belief that a government (or a nation or a community) can be made into a well-oiled machine compounds the error of believing that any of these things is a machine in the first place.
No comments:
Post a Comment