 Second, presentism isn’t merely the thesis that only present things exist. This isn’t the full extent of the position. Without qualification, P is consistent with the view that reality is static (or “frozen”) and that time doesn’t really pass. But reality isn’t that way; our reality is dynamic. Hence, a full and proper account of presentism requires more detail. Typically, presentism is thought to include the additional claim that various things have existed and that others will exist: Sennacherib’s gardens at Nineveh, Boudica, and Marie Curie all existed, but exist no longer; and, though we exist, alongside the Taj Mahal, Taylor Swift, and you (dear reader), all of us will cease to exist at some future time(s), to be replaced by other things, each of which will go out of existence in their turn. Thus, presentism commits us to there being a change in what exists over time, a change in what’s present. Frequently (although not exclusively), presentists describe this change in terms of temporal passage—the passing of time—or, at least, as closely related to it. So, presentism can be understood as the following conjunction: