I believe that designing and building software systems is not "equivalent" to experimental physics, that it is not "experimental" computer science. Following th

I believe that designing and building software systems is not "equivalent" to experimental physics, that it is not "experimental" computer science. Following the metaphor, I believe it's more accuarate to relate it to design and engineering. As in physics, there are very exact scientific theories that, mixed with technical/practical knowledge and insight about systems and people, can be used to create technology. But I would also argue that there may be a way to "experiment" in a similar way physicist do, and it's by looking at "computing" as a phenomenon of the natural world. Computing can be considered a science similar to phyisics, because it can be seen as laws that describe nature, or more specifically how information is processed in the natural world. This "computing" works at a "higher level" than physics, which studies the laws of the "hardware". The most used example is the DNA, with information in a higher level of abstraction than the chemical physical support. I always find amusing to imagine what if Newton had developed his theories as a way to solve practical problems instead of trying to explain motion laws[1], and how maybie that's what happened to "computing". [1](Physics = "Engine Sciences"?)