You'd need to define "physical entity" fairly carefully to make that claim watertight, and probably
lose the baby with the bathwater in the process. To a semiconductor physicist holes are very real...
Yes, holes are real, in the sense that a hole in the ground is real. If I try to set a flower pot on a "hole" it will not be supported, and I can fill it with water. It's an absence of dirt defined by the dirt around it. But, if I dig a hole next to it, and toss the dirt I dig up, into the previous hole, the hole will appear to have moved. But did it?
I can conceive of a model where holes in the ground "move", and it may work for certain physical systems -- like, maybe, some sort of "outback whack-a-mole", or stop motion animation where the hole becomes a character. But, the model falls apart if I actually try, on hands and knees, to shove the hole around the ground it's dug in.
If I try to
actually move a hole in a crystal lattice--the lattice will shatter. The hole
doesn't move, but it's useful to conceive of a
model of it
moving. But, that's all it is -- a
model! And any physicist is deluding him/herself if they believe holes actually
move. Believing models are real is a trap that even scientists fall into, and a trap that limits their thinking in a way that can hinder innovation.
And to make this crystal clear [pun?], I'm NOT debunking holes, I'm pointing out that the idea that holes
actually move is a delusion, in the same way, anthropomorphising an android is delusional.