Newton (somewhat famously) wrote:
And this is one reason why I desired you would not ascribe {innate} gravity to me.
That gravity should be innate inherent & {essential} to matter so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of any thing else by & through which their action or force {may} be conveyed from one to another...
... is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters any competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it.
Gravity must be caused by an agent {acting} consta{ntl}y according to certain laws,...
... but whether this agent be material or immaterial is a question I have left to the consideration of my readers.
Well we know how that went, "leaving it to the readers"... for hundreds of years we have had mass belief in "fundamental forces" as plausible.
Good old "autonomy of thougt and decision".
Recently we have replaced fundamental "forces"... with "fields". Magnetic "field", gravitational "field", electrical "field".
We have "action at a distance" across a "field" now. Or "bent 4-dimensional space-time".
So I do wonder whether Newton would be satisfied, philosophically... with our current beliefs and theories and suggestions (and what some might call conclusion)... but... that would be speculative. Impossible to verify.
I do ask:
Since Newton in his Letter to Bentley, have any other philosophers of note commented or made suggestions or assessments of the plausability of "forces" or "fields" or any "action at a distance across a void"? One of our "sort of accepted" fundamentals?
What have other philosophers said?