It seems to correspond to this discussion fairly well I think in that possibly strings=monads=qbits? This also puts into perception the idea of the "collective unconscience", with these monads(strings) holding the knowledge of the entire universe but their "purpose" gives them a unique function(vibration) on this physical plane that translates into our perception of physical matter.
It's nice that see that you show so much intuitive insights in what those strange monads ought to be. You really made some good remarks. I am in a hurry now, but I will just add some more commentary from my POV.
The essence of monads is not that they are infinitely small points. This was a misconception in history (Kant/Wolff). They are not physical monads in the sense that they are "abstracted" points from a three dimensional space. Example: the point (1,1,1) in the three-dimensional Euclidean space R^3 is a mathematical point. Reasoning about matter, one can divide space in an infinity of such points, and next say that matter is made of such an infinity of points.
But this is not what monads are, they are not physical points but metaphysical points. The essence of monads is to express the universe. Leibniz's main motive for monads is unity. Background is the classical problem of Being/Becoming. How can one change from A to B? In a certain sense B is not-being (i.e. not-A) and non-being cannot exist. Leibniz introduces monads to adress such problems. Your metaphor of "vibration" is very good. The perception of monads is the expression of the Many in the One (these all are technical terms, you might want to google them). But compare it to the sea and its wild
movement. The sea is constantly changing itself. Somehow the sea has all the different forms "in" itself. Where are they? How can the sea change into something it is not (yet). How can there be Many whereas the sea always stays One. What is the "underlying thing" that always remains the same throughout change. Leibniz thinks the Many/One problem with his monadology. The essence of monad is "drive" (being-on-the-way, transition-hood). And each perceptional act externalizes itself in the spatio-temporal world we live in. This world changes whereas the monad remains the same throughout. Monads bring the flux of Becoming (phenomena) into appaerence but are themselves not among them.
Similarly in string theory strings express themselve differently. I don't know the subtleties but I presuppose that each vibrational state expresses a physical atom (quarks, electrons, bosons,...). These last are physical things whereas the strings are non-physical (I guess for physicists they are not, but they ought to be non-physical).
So, modern physics seems indeed very close to Leibniz. The basic atoms of the universe are no longer Epicurean atoms (in these sense of "physically indivisible") but atoms in the sense of Leibniz, i.e. metaphysically unities producing the material world (electron, bosons, etc.). The essence of such strings seems to be their ability to produce different vibrations, yet they remain the same. Just like the sea changes its shape, or Leibniz monads represent themselves differently, or strings vibrate different tones, there is something underlying staying the same (i.a.
atomos) which pro-duces ["pro" + "ducere" means leading forth, bringing forth] the sensible world (resp. 1° "the metaphorical surface" of the sea, 2° the phenomena through perceptual acts of monads, 3° or elemantary particles such as electrons, quarks, bosons, etc.)
.
