 Assuming that the likes of Meyer are correct (and that the likes of Crisp are not), what should we make of premise (4)? What should we make of the claim that: “only present entities exist simpliciter” (P3) is false because P3 collapses into P2 (and P2 is false)? Perhaps we can argue that P3 doesn’t collapse into P2, and that P3 represents a distinct way to state the presentist’s ontic thesis. A defender of P3 might argue that there’s a notion of “existence simpliciter” that’s intelligible, substantive and, importantly, distinct from the “tensed” (“temporal”) notion of existence that’s captured in P2 (i.e., “has existed, exists now, or will exist”).