 One way to reinterpret the claim is as follows: there’s change in what exists over time. Put another way: what’s present changes. But it’s unclear whether this solves the problem or shifts it down the road. What’s required in order to account for the claim that “what’s present changes”? One might reasonably suppose that to assert that what’s present changes, from one moment to the next, we require a difference in the character of successive moments (see Leininger 2015). But there are no such successive moments, given presentism. There’s only the present moment and its contents.