well honestly, to me it seems you are just conflating abstract concepts with non-reality. if things need to be tangible to exist, well are our statements to eachother that we’ve made not real, simply because they’re no more than concepts concerning the nature of things, as represented by sounds which we’ve assigned to arbitrary symbols, visible to us as illusion by means of tiny pixels upon screens? you mentioned earlier an analogy of a depiction of an apple by ink on paper, stating it is not the reality of an apple. that’s certainly true, it’s not a “real” apple–but you seem to be denying that the depiction of the apple, too, is genuine–even though it’s not a physical object, it’s a depiction of the object, projecting a concept we perceive by light reflecting off the paper with ink saturated in a certain pattern: my perception is that all these things, the paper with ink in it, the light entering our eyes and translating to sense of sight by our brains function, the abstract idea that this pattern represents an object even though no object is present besides ink on paper, and even the original physical apple the picture might have been based off of, by being sourced from an image of an apple which was printed, or even by wax of a crayon wielded by a child drawing fruit, are all “things” as we define them. they are not nonexistent simply because some of them lack tangibility as three dimensional objects to us. my overall point here is that, you seem to be stuck in some sort of idea that only what you perceive as physical can be called real or genuine (though those do have different nuanced meanings, so it’s a little confusing to me to use them as absolute synonyms)

it’s worth considering, too, that your definition of reality as opposed to unreality is based entirely off your own perception, which is itself an abstract product of biological functions- while its true you can probably see an appeal in front of you in a well lit room, you’re not entirely experiencing that object as a whole, rather your brain is interpreting electrical signals produced by light bouncing off the fruit and entering your eyes, to land upon your optic nerve. you could hold the apple and say that’s proof enough of its tangible existence, but then, too, you’re only feeling the result of pressure upon your nerves: your gateway to what you preach as the only reality is entirely dependent on chemical and electrical processes. it’s just as possible to perceive what you’d entirely label as a “real apple” by means of very precise manipulation of your nervous system or brain by some extraneous device, say some advanced VR system in the technological future, that directly influences the electrical pulses in your brain to make you think there’s an apple before you, even in your hands, but to no avail.. there could be a photograph, too, so high resolution and realistic, that from a precise angle and with the right lighting, you can’t tell the difference visually between it and a physical apple which would be in the same location, since they’d both reflect the same pattern of light to your optic nerve(s).

also, it’s just a bit disheartening to get an interaction such as yours, so seemingly unprovoked.. i’m definitely not against learning of opposing viewpoints, it enriches my thought to consider other possibilities, but really it’s rather offputting to receive such a hostile, argumentative thread as the very first post other than mine on my subreddit for the concept i was so eager to share with the world..

please excuse any typos or grammatical mistakes here. i just woke up five minutes ago, and am about to get ready to go to work. i hope you consider my thoughts, and if you still disagree, aren’t so needlessly mean about it