2.0123 If I know the object then I also know all the possibilities of its occurrence in states of affairs.

(Each such possibility must be in the nature of the object.)

A new possibility cannot be found later.

This sounds more blatantly metaphysically realist than 2.012. Objects have natures that we can know. On the other hand, we still seem to be dealing with a kind of equation here. To know the object is to know the possibilities of its occurrence in states of affairs. The "must" and "cannot" of the following sentences suggest that we are dealing here with logic, not metaphysics. So really we still seem to be in the process of defining objects. On p. 59 of Letters to Ogden Wittgenstein says: “to know here just means: I know it but I needn’t know anything about it.”

See also the discussion here: http://methodsofprojection.blogspot.com/2009/12/knowing-object-take-two.html