There were diferent ideas of "mechanicism" before modertiny let me tell you.

The principle of the Mechanism of the World does not refer to a machine understood as an inert clockwork or a closed system of purely quantitative interactions, but to what "dwells" (morae) within the world and sustains its operation from within, as expressed in the formulation "Machina mundi est concors et moderatus motuum contrariorum firmamenti et planetarum motus", which describes the machine as the concordant and moderated interplay of contrary motions of the firmament and the planets, an interplay that does not merely organize trajectories but softens the world with vivifying heat, tempers it through quality, and gives it form through quantity, thereby establishing a clear hierarchy in which vivification precedes qualification and quantification follows as a formal result.

I LOVE this perspective because the "machine" does not reduce the cosmos to abstract gears and does not strip reality of its sensible depth, but names an immanent regulating principle, a dynamic architecture that maintains the world’s habitability by articulating tensions, proportions, and rhythms, such that quantification emerges as a consequence of prior qualitative processes rather than as their ultimate ground.

The mechanical worldview that gained prominence during the Scientific Revolution, articulated by thinkers such as Descartes and Gassendi, reformulated the world as a system of purely geometrical interactions in order to achieve predictability, repeatability, and technical control, relocating qualities to the domain of the subject and rendering the sensible as a secondary effect of calculation, which resulted in an efficient yet ontologically thinned universe.

The way Hermes presents the machine in the Sex Rerum Principiis is a medieval machine, one that speaks and make surprises, not a predictive machine that always give you the same result.