Take a chair in an empty space. There is no difference whether you rotate a radiant either the chair or the space. Therefore in this case there is no difference between passive and active transformations. But if in the space beside the chair, there is a table near the chair, then if you rotate the chair it assumes a different position with respect to the table, whereas if you rotate the space the relative positions of the table and the chair remain the same. It follows that in this case there is a difference between active and passive transformations.
From an ontological point of view we can say that two objects A and B are different states of the same object O only if it is possible to pass from A to B through a passive transformation, as in the case of electric and magnetic field. If, on the contrary, the transformation is active, as in the case of supersymmetry between a proton and a neutron as two states of a nucleon, it is controversial to affirm that they are two states of the same object. Consider moreover that the isospin transformation here involved is not so “innocuous” as the purely spatial transformation we proposed in the example of the chair. Michael Redhead, “Quantum field theory for philosophers”, 1983.