Can research rejected by journals has any chances being accepted if it is disseminated by the social media?

In my experience, even peer-reviewed publications are rarely read. There are a handful of influential papers in each field (from what I have seen) which are read and cited. But beyond these, a lot of work is only cited to keep people happy.

Therefore, I think that the chances of people reading the work without it being peer-reviewed are very slim.

If you want your work to get reviewed and it is being rejected before being read (this is what you're saying, I think), then you perhaps need co-authors that know the field better.

One part of your question is very easy to answer:

If enough people agree to at least view them can it spread enough to cause at least one journal to review it seriously?

Journals only consider papers submitted to them. They will not review your work because it is popular on social media.

Try conferences instead

You seem to have an underlying goal of getting in touch with researchers. Writing papers is not a good way to do this and "social media" for papers, like Mendeley, Arxiv etc are paper-centred. You don't get to know people there and "feedback", which is a social interaction, will be scarce.

If you have the guts for it, you should instead try to submit your work to an academic conference. Conferences typically only review your abstract prior to the conference. If your talk is accepted you may get to stand before an audience, present your work and get feedback, however harsh. You may also be relegated to a "poster session" where you put up your research on a wall and hope people come up and look at it. This too involves direct contact with researchers.

Note that rather than present all your postulates, you should give a birds-eye view of your project. What are you trying to accomplish, where are you heading, what is the main gist of the postulates? If you think this is hard, spare a thought for mathematicians working on the "Langlands project", trying to explain what they do.

Some conferences will also publish a conference proceeding, with or without peer-review. This gives you a chance at "real" publishing.

When choosing your conference, forum or workshop, you should consult the proceedings from past years and look for a good match. You say that you have some core postulates that overlap both science and philosophy. It sounds like you are looking for something on the "theory of science", but other keywords may apply too. See for instance http://ccs17.unam.mx/ for a receptive audience on interdisciplinary "complexity science".

A word of advice on getting accepted:

The first question people will have about your postulate is: How does this relate to [insert a century's worth of work on the topic]. Researchers want to see you put your work into the context of the work of others. The bad thing is that you may have to read up on Norbert Wiener, Prigogine, W. Ross Ashby, John Sterman, John Casti, Stuart Kauffman, Konrad Zuse, Maturana & Valera, Max Tegmark, highlights from the Santa Fe complex systems group and even Stephen Wolfram to answer such questions. The good news is that at the end of it, you will be in a much better position to select the right conference or even journal for you.