It's not surprising to me that no physics journals would accept it. Physics journals are, sadly, extremely wary of accepting anything that seems philosophical.
For example, serious people writing serious papers on the foundations of quantum mechanics used to have a hell of a time getting them published. To give a particular example (and I hope I'm not mis-remembering), I don't think Lucien Hardy was able to get this paper [1] accepted. (It now has 215 citations.)
It's sad because the interpretation of quantum physics is important scientific work. What does a dual slit experiment tell us about our world? Trying to answer that question is where the Many Worlds Interpretation came from, and it likely wouldn't have been published prior to the 80s or 90s.
I wonder if he tried one of the philosophy-of-science, foundations-of-physics, or philosophy-of-physics journals? For example, one of the earlier follow-ups to Hardy's paper was published in Foundations of Physics: http://philpapers.org/rec/SCHQTF-2
Most philosophy journals wouldn't regard this paper as philosophical either. While nobody agrees exactly what the philosophical method is, being a priori is more or less required.
For example, serious people writing serious papers on the foundations of quantum mechanics used to have a hell of a time getting them published. To give a particular example (and I hope I'm not mis-remembering), I don't think Lucien Hardy was able to get this paper [1] accepted. (It now has 215 citations.)
[1] Lucien Hardy, Quantum Theory From Five Reasonable Axioms [quant-ph/0101012], https://scirate.com/arxiv/quant-ph/0101012