Here is the situation:

  1. If there had been an apple, I wouldn’t have eaten it.

...is understood to mean:

  1. There wasn’t an apple; I therefore didn’t eat it.

Building on this, can we use the imaginary negative result of wouldn’t have eaten it in the hypothetical situation without the opposite being fulfilled?

(The opposite would be I have eaten it, but this is illogical because there wasn’t any apple.)

In other words, this situation:

  1. If I had not been interested in science, I wouldn’t have done all of that.

...is understood to mean:

  1. I was interested in science, and I have done a lot of things.

Accordingly, in the real situation, the result is the opposite of the hypothetical one.

So could wouldn’t have +PAST PARTICPLE be used in both cases, both the “imaginary negative result” and the “opposite of the real case result”?