If you addressed Russell's Teapot above, then it must have been in some sort of code that went unrecognized by me and I'm just not that interested in looking for it if you can't reference it again.

It should also be pointed out that whether or not you realize it, you are expressing a belief that consciousness is a thing. You've now done this in at least three different ways. You claim it can be transposed, albeit hypothetically. You claim it is unique to your "self", and you claim it can make repeat appearances. All of these things attribute properties to the word "consciousness" which go well beyond merely a state of being. So it should be pointed out that when we are talking about "consciousness", I'm using the literate definition of that word while you appear to be attaching ethereal qualities which go far beyond the literal definition. I suspect that may be why you are getting confused and falsely asserting I claimed consciousness is a thing. You should understand we are talking about two different meanings of the word.

I get that your premise is purely for the sake of argument, but you are still forming the assumption that one's physical being (atoms) which are a thing, would exhibit the same properties as what you describe as a "conscious-self" during such hypothetical transposition. Non-things can't be transposed. You can't have it both ways. Either what you describe as a "conscious-self" is a thing or it isn't. If it isn't, which you claim, then the idea of it transposing is utterly meaningless and your argument fails right out of the gate without any further need of consideration. If it is a thing, which you appear to tacitly admit, then you are contradicting yourself and should probably decide which way you want to go with this.

You didn't write previously "mathematics strongly indicates" what you actually wrote was it was "mathematically impossible". Ignoring for a moment that you've failed to provide an actual mathematical proof of either assertion, one implies falsifiability, the other does not. So if you want to move the goalposts, that's fine, but don't change what you said and pretend what you are saying now is what I was arguing against. If you are now abandoning describing your premise as falsifiable, then I wouldn't contradict you by saying it isn't.