 Is this an acceptable view? Callender (2000, S592) remarks that requiring that an event‘s present must contain at least one event distinct from it, which he calls the non-uniqueness condition, “seems the thinnest requirement one might put on becoming.” He would then not accept Stein’s relation \(R\) as representing a genuine relation of becoming since it fails to meet this condition, but then he also must accept the conclusion of the Rietdijk-Putnam-Penrose argument, since the only alternative to \(R\) is the universal relation. If one wishes to evade chronogeometric fatalism, as far as the special theory of relativity is concerned, then it seems there is no alternative to accepting Stein’s relation \(R\) as representing a genuine relation of becoming and to considering that an event’s present is constituted by itself alone. It is a truism that the relativistic revolution in physics has profound implications for our concepts of space and time. This last dilemma supports that truism.