No, it doesn’t. Take one male human + one female human and you get three more with twins or IVF. With dogs and cats it’s also more.
Then you need to define addition.
That’s another good example of how 1 + 1 doesn’t equal 2 in real life.
I’ve always said this about math too. It’s not the same in real life.
I don’t know who needs to define it, when you put too reproductive beings together. What you get is three, not two. I’m talking biology. Biologically, the math doesn’t carry over.
Yes, but that could be symbolized by the variable equation “a + b = x”, still a mathematical equation.
Strictly speaking your example is not an “addition” but a “multiplication”… 
It is an abstract logical function.
And I did define it earlier. Seems you don’t read a word of what I post. Too bad.
@write4u I was replying to @mriana about their example of human birth
By the way, have you found any two different things that are objectively similar yet?
I think you’re misquoting here. That’s not what I was taught.
It is interesting. That doesn’t mean I agree with you.
I think you’re misquoting here. That’s not what I was taught.
My apologies. This thread is for people who consider 1+1 = 2 to be an objectively true fact independent of the person.
Sure. The mathematical law that “for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction”.
Definitions of principle of liquid displacement. (hydrostatics) the volume of a body immersed in a fluid is equal to the volume of the displaced fluid .
Archimedes’ principle states that a body immersed in a fluid is subjected to an upwards force equal to the weight of the displaced fluid . This is a first condition of equilibrium. We consider that the above force, called force of buoyancy, is located in the centre of the submerged hull that we call centre of buoyancy.
Laws of Symmetry, Equilibrium, etc. Every abstract equation is a logical law inherent in the geometry of the universe.
All these natural logical equations can be found in universal dynamics. No need for human utility. These laws are universal utilities. Human call those regularities by the symbolic term “patterns”. They can be “found” everywhere !!!
What I find curious is your use of the term “weareinthematrix”, a clear reference to the mathematical nature of our environment… 
I would have guessed that you are very familiar with the concept of a natural mathematical environment.
@write4u So your argument is an objective reality exists because my username hints at one? Would you be convinced otherwise if I change it?
They can be “found” everywhere !!!
I think you mean perceived. And yes, I agree. Hence, they exist in our perception of reality. Reality itself doesn’t exist independent of consciousness.
Guess I misunderstood
@lausten Oh no, you can still comment. It just seems redundant to convince someone something they already believe.
[quote=“weareinthematrix, post:32, topic:8480”]
So your argument is an objective reality exists because my username hints at one? Would you be convinced otherwise if I change it?
It is my experience that people often select a pseudonym that reflects a part of their profession or an individual belief system.
Do you believe there is a universal matrix? I’m sure you are aware that a matrix is a mathematical object.
W4U said: They can be “found” everywhere !!!
[quote=“weareinthematrix, post:33, topic:8480”]
I think you mean perceived . And yes, I agree. Hence, they exist in our perception of reality.
No, that is an incomplete statement. These Laws (constants) can be found and perceived (observed) everywhere they exist(ed) in universal reality from quantum to galaxies, long before hominids made their entrance on a little planet located in the outskirts of the Milky Way Galaxy.
Please note that in science an “observer” is any object that interacts with another object.
Your anthropomorphization of natural phenomena is a typical subjective symbolic description and has been a constant obstacle and confusion in all objective discussion of science and the concept of a mathematical universe .
Werner Heisenberg, wrote:
Of course the introduction of the observer must not be misunderstood to imply that some kind of subjective features are to be brought into the description of nature.
The observer has, rather, only the function of registering decisions, i.e., processes in space and time, and it does not matter whether the observer is an apparatus or a human being; but the registration, i.e., the transition from the “possible” to the “actual,” is absolutely necessary here and cannot be omitted from the interpretation of quantum theory.[[6]]
Reality itself doesn’t exist independent of consciousness.
Tell that to Werner Heisenbeg and Niels Bohr.
Well if Werner Heisenberg says that, then it must be objectively true. He’s the person who has famously stepped out of his subjective perception to observe reality from an objective perspective. Oh wait, he hasn’t.
Honestly I expected more a from a forum like yours. If anyone is still interested check out the discussion on my post on Reddit. https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/q6bhfe/eli5_why_do_all_equalities_require_two_different/
Bye.
[quote=“weareinthematrix, post:37, topic:8480”]
Well if Werner Heisenberg says that, then it must be objectively true. He’s the person who has famously stepped out of his subjective perception to observe reality from an objective perspective. Oh wait, he hasn’t.
He did in fact describe how the universe functions without the “help” of man.
It seems you are unable to divorce yourself from your subjective self.
The point of this conversation is that we are living in a matrix, we just don’t know it.
We might as well be characters in a computer game, not knowing the OS that is creating our subjective reality.
Read some of MaxTegmark’s book “Our Mathematical Universe”. It might enable you to gain an 'objective" perspective.
Now, if you want to talk about emergent “consciousness” from mathematical patterns, I am somewhat familiar with that subject, but not in this thread, ok?
You can begin by watching the link to the NOVA program on the “Great Math Mystery”
And listen to some real cosmologists and mathematicians.
but, I don’t believe that reality doesn’t exist independent of consciousness
Seems weareinthematrix believes that the universe is a figment of common imagination.
It is true that Anil Seth posits that when people agree on their “controlled hallucinations”, we can call that reality.
But that still addresses only how humans experience the universe and not what constitutes objective universal reality and why.