2.014 Objects contain the possibility of all circumstances.
Black (p. 55) calls this an “alternative formulation of 2.0123a.”
My first thoughts: Aaargh! First "objects" was introduced vaguely but "state of affairs" was a somewhat precise-seeming constant, but now that we have got a consistent use of "object" the term "state of affairs" gets dropped. Why won't Wittgenstein define his terms and stick to them? Is he deliberately being imprecise? Unhelpful? Is he introducing a new technical term (Sachlagen)?
Cf. Leibniz’ Monadology §§ 65-67:
65. The author of nature has been able to employ this divine and infinitely marvellous artifice, because each portion of matter is not only, as the ancients recognised, infinitely divisible, but also because it is really divided without end, every part into other parts, each one of which has its own proper motion. Otherwise it would be impossible for each portion of matter to express all the universe.
66. Whence we see that there is a world of created things, of living beings, of animals, of entelechies, of souls, in the minutest particle of matter.
67. Every portion of matter may be conceived as like a garden full of plants and like a pond full of fish. But every branch of a plant, every member of an animal, and every drop of the fluids within it, is also such a garden or such a pond.