 The problem with (2) is this. Pick a simple sort of objects, say, shoes, or better, sandals. Suppose \(A\) and \(B\) are two exactly similar sandals, one of which \((A)\) is brand new and the other \((B)\) is worn out. Each consists of a top strap and a sole, nothing more. If \(B\)’s worn strap is replaced by \(A\)’s new one, (2) dictates that the resulting sandal is \(B\) “refurbished.” In fact, if the parts of \(A\) and \(B\) are simply exchanged, (2) dictates that that the sandal with the new parts, \(A'\), is \(B\) and the sandal with the old parts, \(B'\), is \(A\). It follows by ND that \(A\) and \(A'\) and \(B\) and \(B'\) are distinct. This is surely the wrong result. The intuition that \(A\) and \(A'\) are the same sandal is very strong; and the process of exchanging the parts of \(A\) and \(B\) seems to amount to nothing more than the dismantling and reassembling of each. This example is no different in principle than the more elaborate trans-world cases discussed by Chisholm (1967), Chandler (1976), Salmon (1979), or Gupta (1980). (One who claims that \(A\) and \(A'\) differ in that \(A'\) comes into existence after \(A\), does not have much to go on. \(A\) cannot be supposed to persist after \(A'\) comes into existence. We do not end up with two new sandals and one old one. Why then couldn’t it be \(A\) itself that reappears at the later time?)