A you died. A you remains. Nothing is lost, so calling it a “death” is like calling sleep “a small death”: purely philosophical and with no relevance to your ability to live your life after.

It’s a trick of perspective. If you acknowledge that “you” is just a electrochemical reaction, you’re just like a computer program: only defined by what’s happening, not which CPU is running it.

No you can’t. Only through the logic of knowing that the transported one must be the copy. Both will feel like you do. If you eliminate that location part (e.g. like in “The Prestige”), nobody will know or care who is “copy” or “original” (if concepts like that even apply in whatever fictional mechanism that movie uses)

I don’t know what you mean by the talk of “chemical process” and how it’s supposedly meaningful if one ends or not. I’m a brain believing it’s alive. If one recreates or simulates that brain’s functionality sufficiently well and puts it into roughly similar simulated or real body, that person is me.

I’m saying that you’re essentially believing in souls. That the ego in your head that believes it’s an entity because it has access to your memory and philosophy is just an illusion. No less real, but not in any form required to be continuous.

If you interrupt a chemical process and then let it continue, it’s indistinguishable (and therefore identical) to letting it continue in the first place.

If you’d e.g. freeze your body, it doesn’t matter if you call the frozen state “dead” or don’t: your life would continue if it’s possible to unfreeze you.

Death or no death is meaningless if an indistinguishable individual resumes life after.

What makes that “new” consciousness less “you” than the old one? Why do you care if the atoms aren’t the same?

If a perfect copy of me was made, both world be me, and then slowly diverge by different experience. But it doesn’t matter which one has most of the atoms of the body that existed before the duplication (or indeed if any of us was). They’ll both be “me”s with their own perspective and then they’d both continue to exist being “me” from their point of view.

When people talk about continuity of consciousness, they usually mean the ego, and believe that when teleporting “you die, but someone else completely indistinguishable from you but somehow not you” is born.

I say that this little piece of magic “you”-ness that doesn’t make the jump just doesn’t exist.

What makes you think that “continuous consciousness” is a thing and not just the way it feels like to exist?

Do you fell like you’re made out of cells? Do you feel the hormones influencing your thinking? Then why do you think that the perceived continuity of having an ego is a real thing that exists? No soul has been measured so far.

I’d go deeper and say that “continuous consciousness” isn’t a concept that makes sense. You only live in the moment, with access to part of your past selves’ memories.

So there’s no distinction for you between “you have been destroyed and an identical copy of you has been constructed an imperceptible amont of time later” and “an imperceptible amount of time had passed in which nothing has happened to you”