Music Does Not Precede Our Existence
It's definitely interesting to retrospectively apply simple mathematics to musical elements and analyse the relations between them, but it doesn't mean anything other than that mathematics is just a pretty good way to explain most phenomenon. About a minute read.
I recently read a post on a website hosted here (neocities) that talked about music preceding ourselves. The argument was that because music has certain mathematical qualities (a perfect fifth interval has a 3:2 ratio between each frequency, for example), it exists as a phenomenon prior to our experiencing of it. I see these sorts of arguments a lot and have some issues with it.
The mathematical nature of music occurs because we as humans enjoy listening to frequencies with relatively even mathematical ratios. Our enjoyment of music relies on our auditory system and how it interprets sound waves. We're built in a way that finds these ratios pleasing, but they don't mean anything in and of itself.
The way we enjoy certain ratios is culturally dependant. Some non-western music sounds incredibly dissonant to western ears, using dissonant ratios. The people who make that music enjoy it because their ear has been trained to enjoy a different musical palette. This is another reason why the existence of neat musical ratios doesn't mean that music is a thing that precedes our experience of it.
Like any art, music requires an audience. There's a ton of philosophical arguments for this but here's a simple justification: Art exists because a human creates and appreciates it, even without an outside audience the creator is there to experience the art they created. Things like sunsets, beautiful landscapes, and a birdsong are all naturally beautiful, but aren't experienced or appreciated until there is an audience that can appreciate them. Natural things just don't qualify as art without a creator or an audience. I'd be keen to write more about justifications and definitions of art in the future.