If you think of density as "between any two elements there is a third element", then density doesn't have a common direct analogue in general metric spaces. One alternative for a metric space $X$ with distance function $d$ is
For any $x\neq y\in X$, there is a $z\in X$ with $z\neq x,y$ such that $d(x,z)+d(z,y)=d(x,y)$
This says that $X$ has some point "directly between" any two points. This is a rather strict requirement, and not always satisfied in spaces you might want it to be. For instance, the unit circle in the plane with the metric defined as the length of the straight line segment between two points doesn't fulfill this property.
A weaker alternative is
For any $x\neq y\in X$, there is a $z\in X$ with $z\neq x,y$ such that $d(x,z), d(z,y)<d(x,y)$
This says that if you want to go from $x$ to $y$, but the distance is too big to go in a single step, there is an intermediate point $z$ that makes each of the two steps shorter. To borrow some geometric intuition, it roughly says that any line segment is the longest side in some triangle.
On the other hand, if you think of density as "there are points in the space which are arbitrarily close to any given point", then this does indeed translate directly to metric spaces as the property
For any $x\in X$ and any $\varepsilon>0$, there is a $y\in X$ with $y\neq x$ such that $d(x,y)<\varepsilon$
This is called "having no isolated points". It is also closer to what the word "dense" is used for in real analysis.
The least upper bound property has a very standard analogue. It's called a complete metric space. We say that a metric space $X$ is complete iff the following holds:
Any Cauchy sequence in $X$ converges
The notion of "Cauchy" captures the essence of "monotone and bounded above" for when ordering isn't an option. More specifically, a sequence $x_n\in X$ is Cauchy iff
For any $\varepsilon>0$, there is an $N\in \Bbb N$ such that $d(x_m, x_n)<\varepsilon$ whenever $m,n\geq N$
Second counterexample: Take two disjoint open intervalls $I,J\subseteq \mathbb{R}$. Use the usual metric on $I$ and on $J$ but set $\text{d}(x,y)=1$ if $x\in I$ and $y\in J$. This should yield a metric, I think. This fulfills the third but not the second definition.
– Lynn Otto Aug 31 '20 at 13:24