(add my comments as an answer)

Many physicists have argued (succesfuly?) about [this](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropic_force). Now the concept (and content) of *conventional force* can be discussed, the fact remains that entropy in one way or another is there and one can formulate the formalism around this (or even beyond..). 

A similar (and related?) concept is that of an [*inertial force*](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictitious_force) (and [inertia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertia) itself). There are many interesting connections between these concepts and their interplay (*previous link on entropic forces has some links in this direction also*).  

For example using concepts from [information geometry](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_geometry) and [maximum entropy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_entropy_thermodynamics), [Newtonian dynamics can be produced](http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.1071) (or *emerge* if you like)
	
At the end of the day it can be around what one whould like to call *fundamental* (or more correctly "*assigned*") force or property..

There is in fact a [literature](https://www.google.gr/search?q=On+the+Emergence+Theme+of+Physics&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:el:official&client=firefox-a&channel=sb&gfe_rd=cr&ei=RI2kU42vCsHR8geUlIGADQ) on using concepts of *emergent phenomena* in physics (especially lately)


Finaly one should take account of phenomena (e.g like the [Aharonov-Bohm effect](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aharonov%E2%80%93Bohm_effect)), which are not "*assigned*" in the conventional sense (the potential is **not** *observable* or *assignable* in this way)..