alghought the idea of "progress" is the principle that underlies your statements IMO: 4D necessarily "overcome" the 3D or 2D like AHK v2 in comparaison with v1
You are mostly right. In the heat of a discussion, perhaps i may have adopted terms that seem to indicate very strict views or the adoption of a 4D shape as absolute, but context still has to be applied. I actually stand that there is no "correct" or "ultimate" answer to the question of earths shape. I also don't think 2D or 3D views will ever disappear as both are very usefull in our everday lives. We have flat maps all around us, and we also have google earth or desk globes to remind us of the beauty of the globe shape and to allow us an understanding of astronomical concepts such as orbits. And we have GPS and other recent technologies to remind us of the possibilities of considering the 4D shape. Whenever we need to complete a task, we will still adopt whichever shape is most suited to represent the land and space for the task at hand. Adopting any model as final is thus seemingly not a very good idea and that is perhaps what we call flat-earth mentality. It is curious though that some people display a flat-earth mentality when it comes to defending the 3D shape as final and complete. I maintain that considering the 4D shape is good for any academic discussion, but i do not intend to say it is absolute in any way, rather i keep my conclusion: The earth has no definitive shape.