Which is the "Real" Apple?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Philosophical Realists with the Philosophical Realism claim reality and things exist as mind-independent to the extent the moon pre-existed humans and will exists after humans are gone.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

As such, according the p-realist because moral elements are merely opinions, beliefs, and judgments, they cannot be mind-independent facts.
As such there are no objective moral facts; morality cannot be objective.

I have argued Philosophical Realism is grounded on an illusion.
Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167

Therefore p-realists has no solid grounds to reject there are no objective moral facts.
Meanwhile the anti-realists has grounds to verify and justify moral-biological elements are objective moral facts via the human-based moral FSK.

Here is an illustration why Philosophical Realism is not realistic.

At what point in the life cycle of an apple is the really 'real' apple?

Is it the real apple,

1. At the point of its fertilization?
2. At its growing phase an a unripen apple?
3. When it is ripen on the tree?
4. When it is pick and put on the self for sale?
5. When it is starting to rot gradually?
6. When it is rotten?
7. When it is totally rotten?
8. When it is fully turned to dust, except its seed remains?

The life cycle of of an apple thus stretches at t1 [fertilization] to t[nth] turned to dust except its seeds.
However within the continuum of the life cycle the time period can be broken into millions of nano-seconds where each t[nano-second] there is a different apple state of the apple.

You may pluck an apple from a tree as claim that is the real apple, but from that time onward, the apple is progressively rotting and at every change of nano-seconds there is a different apple from the previous one.

So my question is,
at what point in time does the real apple exists?

Note the above example is to counter Philosophical Realism as unrealistic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

[Veritas Aequitas]

Note Philosophical Realism.

Philosophical realism is usually not treated as a position of its own but as a stance towards other subject matters.

Realism about a certain kind of thing (like numbers or morality) is the thesis that this kind of thing has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.[1][2][3]

This includes a number of positions within epistemology and metaphysics which express that a given thing instead exists independently of knowledge, thought, or understanding.[4]

This can apply to items such as the physical world, the past and future, other minds, and the self, though may also apply less directly to things such as universals, mathematical truths, moral truths, and thought itself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

The counter to the above is the more realistic empirically based anti-realism [Kantian]. i.e. Empirical Realism.

What anti-realism [Kantian Empirical Realism] claim is there is no reality that is absolutely independent [i.e. intricately interacted] of the human conditions.
It would be wrong to state reality is merely 'dependent' on humans as if humans deliberately create reality.
But note this claim;
Humans are the Co-Creator of Reality They are In
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=32476&p=501935&hili ... or#p501935

The above perspective is to ensure there is absolutely no room [fool proof] for anything that is absolutely independent of the human conditions, notably the existence of an independent God or soul that survives physical death that trigger believers to commit the most terrible evil on humanity.

Why the majority of people tend toward philosophical realism is due to an instinctive psychological state that trigger 'conclusions' re Philosophical Realism [or Transcendental Realism] which prompted Kant to warn of the following;

These conclusions {transcendental ideas} are, then, rather to be called pseudo-Rational 2 than Rational,
although in view of their Origin they may well lay claim to the latter title {rational},
since they {conclusions} are not fictitious and have not arisen fortuitously, but have sprung from the very nature of Reason.
They {conclusions} are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself.
Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them {the illusions}.
After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him.
CPR B397

So for those who have a tendency towards Philosophical Realism which is unrealistic, do reflect deeper and wider on this instinctual drive.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Usually when you're about to eat it.

So at other times, that fruit is not a 'real' apple?

Is this something that actually worries you? If so, it's a kind of insanity, or just academic idiocy.

You don't have the intellectual competence to note there are many perspectives to 'what is real' i.e. there is nothing that is absolutely absolute real independent of the human conditions as claimed by philosophical realism.

[Walker]

At what point in the life cycle of an apple is the really 'real' apple?

Rather than advising you to define apple before defining “real” apple, and rather than responding like some lout who cares to declare no care, I’ll actually contribute to the philosophical enquiry …

An apple is a compounded thing composed of a unique combination of elements, differentiated from all other things by those elements, by the relationship of those elements with one another, and by their relationship with elements outside the apple skin ... keeping in mind that all these elements themselves are compounded things comprised of compounded things, and all of these things are constantly changing at various rates which affects aspects of these elemental relationships. Compounded things whose compounded elements are constantly changing in relationship to one another make the definition of apple situationally contingent, that is, relevant only to the moment that apple is defined.

However, as has been astutely observed, apples are not people, and this can cause conundrums in comprehending the real apple.

Why? Because ultimately you are the baseline for comprehension, and although you as defined by thought exist in relationship, you are not what you think you are … just as apples are not what you think they are, but rather, exist independent of defining thought.

Moving beyond the baseline of incomprehension ...

How 'bout those apples?

[Sculptor]

At what point in the life cycle of an apple is the really 'real' apple?

Is it the real apple,

1. At the point of its fertilization?

2. At its growing phase an a unripen apple?

3. When it is ripen on the tree?

4. When it is pick and put on the self for sale?

5. When it is starting to rot gradually?

6. When it is rotten?

7. When it is totally rotten?

8. When it is fully turned to dust, except its seed remains?

The life cycle of of an apple thus stretches at t1 [fertilization] to t[nth] turned to dust except its seeds.
However within the continuum of the life cycle the time period can be broken into millions of nano-seconds where each t[nano-second] there is a different apple state of the apple.

You may pluck an apple from a tree as claim that is the real apple, but from that time onward, the apple is progressively rotting and at every change of nano-seconds there is a different apple from the previous one.

So my question is,
at what point in time does the real apple exists?

Note the above example is to counter Philosophical Realism as unrealistic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
The OP is not intended to debate about abortion.

An apple is real when I have tasted it.

[promethean75]

You cannot bite into the same apple twice.

[Walker]

The US Civil War armies who marched into town and ate the Gettysburg apples in July, when they were hard and green, preferred real stomach cramps to real hunger. The lesser of two evils, as folks say. A few months after the infamous battle, when the apple orchards had ripened, the few people who had not left town because of death pestilence* caused by the bodies of men and horses, did not eat the apple food, or turn it into cider. Why? Because the battle had soaked the ground around the apple roots with blood.

* Folks in the olden days of the US Civil War figured that disease and death were carried by odours. In hospitals, washing hands to eliminate the odours of death picked up from dissecting cadavers had the side effect of reducing infection.

[Impenitent]

Steve Jobs is smiling

-Imp

[Veritas Aequitas]

Why? Because ultimately you are the baseline for comprehension, and although you as defined by thought exist in relationship, you are not what you think you are … just as apples are not what you think they are, but rather, exist independent of defining thought.
..........

Given the Time factor and that the existence of the "apple" is over say 91 days, that would be 131,040,000,000,000 instances of nano-seconds.

That would mean there are 131,040 billon supposedly real apples existing independent of defining thoughts.

By the time you think of one real apple, it is gone and the next nano-second real apple exists till what you have is dirt and apple seeds.

The point here is given time factor is not ultimately independent of the human conditions.
Thus despite you 'think' there is an independent real apple of defining thought, there is no ultimate absolute real apple independent of the human conditions.

Whatever the real apple, it must be qualified at least to the respective nano-second of which there are 131,040 billon real apples.

[Veritas Aequitas]

An apple is real when I have tasted it.

That is common sense and not philosophical as expected in this forum.

Note my explanation to Walker in the above post.
Rationally, what about the other 131,040,000,000,000 nano-second instances of real apples?

My point is one need to think and reflect hard and not jump to the conclusion there is a real apple out there that is independent of the human conditions as claimed in philosophical realism.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You cannot bite into the same apple twice.

Yes, it is along the principle from Heraclitus
"No man ever steps in the same river twice",

and
"panta rhei"("everything flows")
in Time.

Thus one cannot insist there is a 'real' river that is independent of time which is conditioned upon the human condition.
Therefore philosophical realism is not realistic.

[Dontaskme]

At what point in the life cycle of an apple is the really 'real' apple?

There is no question as to whether an 'apple' is real, which would seem to imply the 'apple' could be something other than real.

The truth is, there is only ''APPLE'' as the concept is known absolutely, as a fixed concept.

To then question whether the fixed known concept that is 'apple' is real or not is a mute question, the more begging question would be... is the ''knower'' of the fixed concept known as 'apple' real... is the 'knower' real or unreal, and what would question that question? Does the 'knower' actually exist as real or unreal?
If the answer is yes the knower is real...then the question would be..what does the concept ''Real'' look like?

The apple obviously exists as it is known conceptually, but that's all that can be known about apple. To then question whether the concept is real or not, doesn't even make sense.

.

[Veritas Aequitas]

At what point in the life cycle of an apple is the really 'real' apple?

There is no question as to whether an 'apple' is real, which would seem to imply the 'apple' could be something other than real.

The truth is, there is only ''APPLE'' as the concept is known absolutely, as a fixed concept.

To then question whether the fixed known concept that is 'apple' is real or not is a mute question, the more begging question would be... is the ''knower'' of the fixed concept known as 'apple' real... is the 'knower' real or unreal, and what would question that question? Does the 'knower' actually exist as real or unreal?
If the answer is yes the knower is real...then the question would be..what does the concept ''Real'' look like?

The apple obviously exists as it is known conceptually, but that's all that can be known about apple. To then question whether the concept is real or not, doesn't even make sense.

.

Your point is irrelevant to the OP.

Note 'real' in this sense,

Reality is the sum or aggregate of all that is real or existent within a system, as opposed to that which is only imaginary.
The term is also used to refer to the ontological status of things, indicating their existence.[1]

In physical terms, reality is the totality of a system, known and unknown.[2] Philosophical questions about the nature of reality or existence or being are considered under the rubric of ontology, which is a major branch of metaphysics in the Western philosophical tradition. Ontological questions also feature in diverse branches of philosophy, including the philosophy of science, philosophy of religion, philosophy of mathematics, and philosophical logic.

These include questions about whether only physical objects are real (i.e., Physicalism), whether reality is fundamentally immaterial (e.g., Idealism), whether hypothetical unobservable entities posited by scientific theories exist, whether God exists, whether numbers and other abstract objects exist, and whether possible worlds exist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality

[Dontaskme]

Your point is irrelevant to the OP.

Note 'real' in this sense.

Your OP is irrelevant to the question posited as > ''Which is the "Real" Apple?'' without including the one who would ask the question, which is a very important relevant and rational issue, when it comes to discussing real philosophical questions.

If you want to back away from answering my response to the OP, then your OP will just make absolutely no nonsense to the reader, whatsoever.

You cannot claim that an object could be REAL ...without first knowing what ''Real' looks like. That's just obvious philosophical sense and rationality.

If you do not want to answer the obvious question, with rationality and sense, then you will contine to seek answers for ever and ever and ever and ever....and that to me, is a stupid way to philosophize.

It's your call, you can refuse to abort this mission if you so wish, it's your never ending story after all.

[Sculptor]

An apple is real when I have tasted it.

That is common sense and not philosophical as expected in this forum.

Your ignorance precedes you.
That, my friend, is Empiricism whose virtues were extolled by Berkey, Hume and Locke to name just three.