RadCap

CF - exactly. The project is just a blank-check support of an undefined and unidentified political platform that mouths vague platitudes about achieving 'liberty' - but without providing any intellectual basis (or even definition) for that liberty.

Change does not imply negation of anything. This is a VERY old error, going all the way back to Heraclitus. He was the first known philosopher to attack what Aristotle later identified as the basic laws of logic. Specifically he attacked the Law of Identity and Contradiction.

He stated change necessarily involves contradiction. He said, after change we have the SAME thing which is not the same (as opposed to substitution where we have a different thing from what existed before). A changing thing is an identity of opposites – it both IS and is NOT what it was and what it will be. This is a contradiction.

Since all the world involves change, his view was that existence itself is contradictory. From this, he drew the conclusion that the "world stuff" - what the greeks considered the fundamental essence of everything - was change itself. He believed that there are no entities - no THINGS - at all. His famous aphorism was:

“Nothing is. Everything is becoming.”
“Everything flows and nothing abides.”

This type of philosophy is called a process philosophy because it holds the change AS reality. Specifically, it is refered to as the "Heraclitian flux".

Of course, Aristotle blew this view out of the water a few hundred years later. As he aptly pointed out, the concept change already presupposes non-contradictory identity. It assumes change FROM something TO something - from one identity TO another identity (without identity, there can be NO change). As he put it, change is "matter" taking on new "form". It is fully real, not Plato's mix of "being" and "non-being".

Each particular – each primary substance is comprised of two elements:

Forms - a universalizing element which constitutes the basis for putting it into a particular class and ascribing to it a certain nature

Matter – an individualizing element which constitutes the basis of its uniqueness – that which makes it a ‘this’.

In other words, matter is the stuff or material comprising a thing. Form is its structure or organization. And change is merely the process of this matter taking on a new form. Specifically, change is passage of matter from 'potentiality' to 'actuality', which occur in orderly, predictable ways.

Put simply - no contradiction.

Now, objectivism refines this formulation. However, this discussion has already gone FAR beyond the bounds of what can rationally be handled by a forum. As I have repeated multiple times, you CANNOT be taught a philosophy here (let alone an entire HISTORY of philosophy). As such, at this point, I can now ONLY advise you to get the book.

Period.

PS

You ask where you would have implied anything outside the material world. You didnt imply it at all. You stated it EXPLICITLY. "The infinity of time, however, is within itself a contradiction, and is full of contradictions, since FROM THE OUTSIDE the infinity is solely consisting of finite measures, and yet that is the case."