The page you quoted from talks about mentions "the assembly of the five aggregates".
It's standard doctrine that there's no such thing as a permanent (not impermanent), independent (not "dependently originated") self: that's the so-called anatta doctrine, see for example What is the precise meaning of anatta?
The "five aggregates" are things like "form" (perhaps "body"), "feeling", "consciousness", etc. -- which, apparently, people mistake to be themselves -- e.g. "I am this body" (or "I have this body"), "I am (or I have) this consciousness", and so on. Buddhism teaches that these things (these aggregates, skandhas) aren't permanent; that taking them to be "self" is a cause of suffering, and not a good theory (or "right view") to hold or attach to.
Given that Thich Nhat Hanh is Vietnamese/Mahayana, and talking on the same page about Bodhisattvas and peace workers, I think that what he's aiming towards is a view of selflessness (i.e. not selfishness) and interdependence (i.e. not independence). I think that's obvious when you turn the page and read "We have to strip away all the barriers" and so on.
I think that both Thich Nhat Hanh, and His Holiness the Dalai Lama, write "popular" books intended to benefit a Western audience.
Anyway, to answer your question, I think the only false view of of "an unchanging entity that exists on its own", that he's talking about here, is the "self" (or "a false view of self"). For example this (my invention, this isn't quoting anyone else) might be one of these false views:
I'm me; and I'll remain 'me' until I die. And I remain me regardless of what other people do or even regardless of what I do.
I think that Thich Nhat Hanh's view is that we (people) are highly interdependent; we exist together, we affect each other; everything I have (a name, a body, an education) comes from other people. In practice there's little or no sense in which anyone is independent, and to imagine we are "sealed off like that not only isn't living, it isn't possible".
I suppose an example of how people aren't "independent" comes from this (non-Buddhist) doctrine, which was once semi-famous as a doctrine for Early Childhood Educators:
CHILDREN LEARN WHAT THEY LIVE by Dorothy Law Nolte
If a child lives with criticism,
he learns to condemn.
If a child lives with hostility,
he learns to fight.
If a child lives with encouragement,
he learns to be confident.
If a child lives with tolerance,
he learns to be patient.
If you live with serenity,
your child will live with peace of mind.
With what is your child living?