I am not sure what it is about my way of stating things that is causing such severe comprehension problems for you (repeatedly). I never said that Computer Science is not deductive. In fact, the reason we even have a question over Computer Science being a science or not is that most of the things computer scientists do in practice are in fact deductive results about mathematical models. To be called a science, a field of study does however need to have a connection to the empirical world - and for computer science, C-T thesis is that connection.

Anyway, let me be the one bringing the discussion back to quantum computing this time. I don't think anybody in the world who could argue that study of entanglement - think Bell's theorem and CHSH inequality - isn't science. In fact, the 2022 Noble Prize for Physics was awarded to people who made foundational contributions on that field. I see Quantum Computing as a direct spiritual successor to that study.

I don't think I'm having trouble understanding you at all. Rather, your definition of science is inconsistent and thus not comprehensible. To understand why, let's assume that the C-T hypothesis was never hypothesized, but Turing still described his mathematical formulation of the Turing machine. Mathematicians then went on to use that definition to do mathematical research not tied to the empirical world. According to you, those mathematicians are not doing science. Now let's assume that someone formulated the C-T hypothesis. Suddenly, all that work that was previously "not science" is suddenly "science." So you can see how your definition, at best, can only classify things as "science" or "maybe science" because ties to the empirical world can always be discovered later.

A proper definition of science would be able to consider a study X and classify it as science or not science using only intrinsic properties of the study, not an extrinsic property like a known connection to the empirical world.