Argument for multiplicity of the ixperiencitness concept

Imagine the case where we have an original and a cidentireplica. They have the exact same consciousness. This idea has been well it has been well established in other arguments. Through the experiment the original and a cidentireplica have the exact same structure and functioning. The body is always exchanging matter when it eats, drinks, and breathes. The bones are not even made of the same matter if you wait long enough. All the matter that is lost in the original replaces the matter that is lost cidentireplica and visa versa. So eventually all the matter that was in the original is now in the cidentireplica and visa versa. The original is now the material object that the cidentireplica was and visa versa. What has happened to the ixperiencitness of each? They still have the identical consciousness. If the matter is actually important, but they do not have the same ixperiencitness, which supporters singular theories say they can not have, the ixperiencitness will have to have switched between the bodies. When and how would be the next issue.

If the ixperiencitness has not changed then matter is not the necessary part of the ixperiencitness continuation process. But if this is not, then what is? It is assumed that some process of matter assimilation is happening: one piece of matter is being programed or changed in some way so that it continues to carry on that little bit of ixperiencitness that it contains or some such process. There is no scientific evidence that there is any such part of matter that can do this. So it is a supernatural idea.

This leads to the conclusion to maintain singularity you have to have supernatural events happening. It cannot be hidden behind some QM effect happening either because a cidentireplica by definition has the exact QM states as the original. You can argue that there can never be two pieces of matter with the same QM states. This is a version of the "can't make a cidentireplica argument" using QM rather than complexity and current technology as reasons. This is avoidance with out understanding. See parallel lines and infinities arguments