  Cabello et al. claim to have proven the existence of an empirically
verifiable difference between two broad classes of quantum interpretations. On
the basis of three seemingly uncontentious assumptions, (i) the possibility of
randomly selected measurements, (ii) the finiteness of a quantum system's
memory, and (iii) the validity of Landauer's principle, and further, by
applying computational mechanics to quantum processes, the authors arrive at
the conclusion that some quantum interpretations (including central realist
interpretations) are associated with an excess heat cost and are thereby
untenable - or at least - that they can be distinguished empirically from their
competitors by measuring the heat produced. Here, we provide an explicit
counterexample to this claim and demonstrate that their surprising result can
be traced back to a lack of distinction between system and external agent. By
drawing the distinction carefully, we show that the resulting heat cost is
fully accounted for in the external agent, thereby restoring the tenability of
the quantum interpretations in question.
