Akinbo,
Hi. I agree that our thoughts seem to be converging somewhat along with those of Franklin Hu, Kjetil Hustveit and some other essayists. It seems to make more sense to think this way, so it makes me wonder why I don't see more of it from physicists?
1. On what separates the fundamental building blocks (monads/existent states), I would say:
What separates two books placed on top of each other? There's not a separate structure that is the boundary between the books. Instead, the surface of the book, which defines the full extent of what is contained within, and yet is not a separate structure from the rest of the book, delimits each book as a separate existent state and thereby separates them. Suppose one removed the front and back covers of the books and put them on top of each other. The surface of the book that defines what is contained within would be one and the same as the first and last pages of text in the book. As you keep removing possible borders and trying to move down to more fundamental levels, eventually you come to the monad/fundamental-building-block level. By definition of a monad, there are no contents inside the edge. The lack of any content is the same as what people used to call non-existence. So, this is one reason why I think the lack-of-all-content, or what we used to call non-existence, is actually, when thought of differently, the most fundamental of existent states, or the monad.
2. In regard to how movement would take place in the type of universe I'm envisioning, my thinking is:
Around a sphere, you can't fit in an integral number of equal sized spheres, so there will be one that overlaps with another (step E. in my essay). Because both are trying to be in their natural spherical shape but both are prevented from being in that shape by the overlap, this will be an asymmetry and there will be pressure at the interface between the two existent states that are trying to be spheres. This pressure at the interface will cause the state to bulge out on the other side (e.g. change in shape). This bulge out will then exert pressure on the existent states next to them. This causes a transferral in pressure, or energy, without the existent states themselves moving. They're just transferring the energy by changes in their shapes that are transmitted to the adjacent spheres. I'm wondering if this "massless" transfer of energy may be a photon? I think it's okay for a monad/fundamental building block to be able to change shape because that still doesn't mean the monad has parts. It's the monad, as a whole, that is changing shape. It's not parts of it that are changing shape. This is about as far as I've gotten because modeling even a few flexible spheres and how they interact becomes very complicated (at least for me!).
Your method where a monad is destroyed at one end and created at the other when a force is applied to cause movement is a little bit different, but I think we're both thinking in the same direction. Your destruction/creation of monads is kind of like my monads changing shape and transmitting this shape change to the adjacent monad.
3. From your posting on your essay, you were saying that Leibniz thought that monads wouldn't have any shape because they don't have any interior contents, but I think I disagree. Something that exists in three dimensions but that has no interior contents would have no information specifying corners or angles, so it would be the same size in all directions, which would be a sphere.
Overall, no matter how much we believe in our own specifics on how things move, etc., we eventually have to build up our ideas to the point where we can make testable predictions. Seeing how we both have other jobs (doctor, biochemist), I think that might take awhile! At least, I know it will for me. Hopefully, yours will go faster! Eventually, I'd like to get to that distant point where we can use our ideas to build warp drives and go out and meet friendly aliens! That might also take awhile, I admit. :-)
Roger