He’s arguing against materialism, not physics. The point is that because physics deals with mathematical idealizations and only of those aspects of reality that can be idealized in such a way, it disregards large swathes of reality that can’t be idealized mathematically, like qualia. (Others here claim that physics characterizes sound and color perfectly, but that isn’t really true. What it does is redefine sound and color reductively. There is nothing wrong with that for the purposes of prediction and control as long as we realize that’s what we’re doing, but that is not the view criticized in the post.)

Materialism, a metaphysical position and not a scientific one, is discredited in a number of ways, but in this case, any materialism that defines matter as whatever physics says it is undermines itself by leading to idealism because the content of physical theories and models are mathematical idealizations, ones which need not strictly correspond to reality. If you’re not a materialist, and especially of a scientistic variety, then your views are not the subject of this post, but the view of physics you confidently declare is not shared by everyone.