I'm not an expert here, but truly interested to hear responses to this question. To say that 1+1=2 is "true", does that not require a corollary in "reality" to

I'm not an expert here, but truly interested to hear responses to this question. To say that 1+1=2 is "true", does that not require a corollary in "reality" to something fundamental that can be called a "one" object? I believe this is called mathematical constructivism. Imagine, hypothetically, that we cannot identify something that is physically fundamental and individual. My question is whether any mathematics in that scenario could be considered "true" without such constructivism, in other words, without a physical correspondence to an unquestionably, physically fundamental "one" object.