Proof Mind is Fundamental and Matter Doesn't Exist

[Rational AKD]

Nothing to do with any comment I've made, so we find ourselves pitching straw, don't we?  Do what you claimed could be and had already been done, what you need as a given.....and stop begging others to assume your burden, my patience isn't limitless.  Do...work.......

nothing to do with any comment you've made? you clearly said, multiple times, that at least one of the substances need to be tangible for tangible interaction to occur. but in order for interaction to occur by definition there needs to be influence. which means, both substances are tangibly affected. one substance must be tangibly influencing, and one must be tangibly influenced. a substance can't tangibly influence without being tangible. nor can a substance be tangibly influenced without having tangible properties to tangibly influence. it is by definition mutual, so both substances must be tangible for tangible interaction to occur.
just because you're too thick to see what i'm saying doesn't mean i'm shifting the burden of proof...

Wonderful, a much more manageable form of your argument.  Let's have a look.

not like I changed the argument... premise 4 in the OP always said "there is therefore something that it true of mind but not of matter. this means they cannot be the same thing and mind is not reducible to matter." you're the one who assumed that was only stating what is true in the possible solipsistic world...

If you want to use the premise of solipsism (as -either- a possibility or actuality), then you might want to stick with it, rather than quietly arguing against your own premise by proceeding to make some comment about the nature of the universe which, of course, according to what you've decided to call a "premise" (in truth, yet another non-seq) either doesn't exist...or can't be proven to exist.   May as well drop it entirely and just begin with "If mind is not reducible to matter"..to avoid reductions to the absurd or incoherence

perhaps you'll like Raatz original form of the argument then. it's as follows:
1. mind exists.
2. there are properties of mind matter cannot have.
3. therefore mind is not reducable to matter.
4. substance dualism is false.
5. therefore all is mind and monistic idealism entails.
I reworded the argument because most people object to premise 2, so I gave substantiation for it by showing a modal difference between mind and matter with the possibility of a solipsist world. I suspect if I hadn't done that, nearly everyone would be saying 2 is an assumption... because the criticism I get now is that i'm assuming solipsism is possible.

The bar for validity is still waiting to be crossed, and for the same reasons already stated.

so I assume you don't have a problem with the 'mind is not reducible to matter' premise now that you have new understanding of it? which would only leave your criticism of the premise 'substance dualism is false.'

I've noticed, btw, that your argument might be a record of your own development into idealism.  You've used Leibniz, an argument generally employed for dualism and then followed it up immediately with a renouncement of dualism.  Were you a dualist before becoming a monistic idealist?

I was a dualist before. but as I dove into philosophy I've changed many of my views. I watched some videos about implications of quantum mechanics and how they debunk materialism and naïve realism. but what convinced me to be an idealist was this argument. perhaps you can better understand it in a video format.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4l1lQMCOguw