 Last, but not least, we might motivate presentism by appealing to ontological parsimony (e.g., Bourne 2006: 68–69). Suppose that we endorse something like “Ockham’s razor”, viz. the principle that one shouldn’t multiply entities beyond necessity (see the entry on   simplicity&gt;,  esp. §2). By asserting that only present things exist, i.e., by not positing the existence of any non-present things, the presentist’s ontology is more parsimonious than the ontology of their opponents (e.g., growing block theorists posit the existence of past and present things, eternalists posit the existence of past, present, and future things, etc.). All things being equal, we have at least a defeasible preference for presentism over its rivals, if we have a taste for ontological desert landscapes.