I believe in the universe

My comment is more about dissenting opinions from people in ivory towers than two people engaging in discourse. There's a lot science doesn't know, and there are probably a lot of things that the scientists of today would call phony if presented with the science of tomorrow.

Like the frozen water molecules, the ones shown love freeze beautifully and the ones shown hate freeze with little design. And the plants afraid of being burned whose reactions can be observed through a polygraph. Science can't explain that right now, right? But these things can be tested and examined.

For my personal growth, development, and actualization I utilize psychology, philosophy, and spiritual teachings. It's not the only thing I value, but I've needed to make changes so it's become a big part of my life.

I don't look at science the same way as philosophy, though. To me science is the framework of how everything physically works. Like grass is green because it has chlorophyll, birds can fly because the wind pushes them up, the wind blows because the air is moving to a lower pressure.

I usually first perceive things scientifically, and then analyze them in an open ended sort of way. I just want to clarify a little about how I operate, I think science is magic too.

Honestly, I think they take Descartes Objective Reality far too seriously. Scientific facts stand on their own regardless of whether they are perceived or not. There's just no reason to be spooked by a tree falling unless it were to fall in the woods of quantum entanglement.

The 432 Hz system (the system in which A4 [the A closest to middle C as defined by scientific pitch notation] is defined as a 432 Hz vibration) isn't inherently superior in any manner whatsoever. That said, it isn't worse either.

The specific number used for tuning is arbitrary. "Hertz" means "cycles per second" and seconds are a fairly arbitrary unit. Even if we instead tuned via a system which used cycles per some unit derived from the Planck unit for time, which is derived from a physical constant of the universe rather than being more arbitrary in nature, no superiority would likely emerge from any specific reference point used for tuning in regards to vibrational frequency and I can explain why.

The basic "miracle" of music is the octave. It's called such due to the fact that the Ionian mode (the major scale), which most of music theory is based on, contains seven distinct notes and repeats itself on the eighth note but in a higher register. The sixth mode of a C major scale (C, D, E, F, G, A, and B) is the Aeolian mode (more commonly known as the minor scale) and is just A minor in this case, which contains these notes: A, B, C, D, E, F, and G. If we continue to play the scale in an ascending manner, the eighth note would be another A, but one that vibrates twice as quickly as the first one, sounds like the same note but twice as high in pitch, and is referred to as being one octave higher due to the relation to the number eight via the Ionian mode.

I had to first explain music theory's obsession with the Ionian mode to make sense of the term "octave", which clearly relates to eight, because there are actually twelve distinct notes in Western music over the span of a so-called octave: A, A#/B♭, B, C, C#/D♭, D, D#/E♭, E, F, F#/G♭, G, and G#/A♭.

This is what really matters, how many notes we choose to create from the span of one so-called octave, how many divisions we form between any arbitrarily chosen vibration and both half and double that frequency and so on. This matters a lot as music, melody and harmony anyway, appears to be all about the ratios between one vibration and the next and/or between notes ringing simultaneously. In other words, the specific vibrational identities of individual notes don't really matter outside the context of other notes. It's all a matter of relativity. Whether you tune A4 to 432 Hz, 440 Hz, or any other number, the emotional and intellectual qualities of the music will be the same as it all comes back to the hidden mathematics regarding ratios formed from the given set of notes being processed subconsciously by the human brain. These ratios remain identical in both the 432 Hz and 440 Hz 12-note tunings.

There are other systems wherein the octave is divided so as to form other amounts of evenly spaced notes as well, and changing this indeed actually produces profound aural differences, but the world slowly settled on twelve fairly unanimously for the same reasons that mathematicians know base-12 would have been a superior universal counting system compared to base-10: Twelve is a relatively low number to possess so many factors, and also uniquely possesses a number of factors that is half of its overall value! One, two, three, four, six, and twelve are all factors of twelve. This creates so many interesting possibilities for ratios.

While twelve evenly spaced notes was all but unanimously agreed upon globally and musical instruments were built to cater to this system, the need for notes to be tuned to any specific frequency rather than merely in relation to one another all began as a result of the need for multiple musicians to play in concert with one another. It became increasing clear that middle C needed a universal reference point. Eventually an essentially arbitrary point, as nothing renders one point alone more special than another outside of relativity, was eventually chosen that happened to correspond with A4 falling on 440 Hz.

It's a bit like being tasked with drawing a line that is to represent the equator on a perfectly uniform sphere. Where you draw it is utterly inconsequential, but once you have, the prime meridian can only go in one place. No starting point is superior to another. It's all relativity.

Perhaps you've seen cymatics demonstrations wherein notes from the 432 Hz system appear to yield more geometrically relevant visuals within various physical mediums, but these are ignorant at best and deceptive at worst because this is entirely dependent on the materials used and the properties thereof. The mediums can be tuned to exhibit the desired patterns and/or behaviors for any given frequency. In other words, it remains arbitrary in the visual realm as well.

As for science itself, I fear that you may have the wrong idea of it. Science is essentially the study of verifiable truth itself. Unless it's a field related to the arts, when something can decisively be said to not even /loosely/ resemble a science, this is very often the exact same thing as saying that it has been determined to be bullshit, almost invariably.

You're only as limited as you make yourself. You have boundless energy to harness and share with others! The Fibonacci sequence in itself is the shape of our galaxy and the way that flowers grow! In spirals! Hurricanes.. wind patterns.. shifting of tides..