 These arguments are usually discussed in the context of physics. This is because they are devised in the first place to show that no infinite can actually exist in the physical world. But if, endorsing literalism, we consider mathematical objects as properties of physical objects, then the impossibility of the existence of actual infinites in the physical world implies the impossibility of infinitely extended geometric lines and infinite sets of numbers. But those who reject literalism about the ontology of mathematics have different views regarding the applicability of such arguments to mathematical objects. For instance, Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī believes that the Mapping Argument cannot reject the infinitude of the collection of natural numbers because he renders mathematical objects as mind-dependent and fully immaterial entities (Sharḥ ʿUyun al-ḥikma, al-Ṭabīʿīyāt [1994: 53–57]). Although we can appeal to the Mapping Argument to reject the existence of an infinite collection of distinct physical objects in the extramental world, this argument cannot reject the existence of an infinite number of mind-dependent objects like numbers, or so al-Rāzī seems to believe (Zarepour 2020b: 4.1).