I'm doing a paper comparing Nietzsche with modern science and I'm afraid I'm just chasing a chimera here. http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2007/02/16-04.html The notion that Observer Effect isn't ultimately caused by the light introduced to make the observation possible, is still academically controversial. Also it might be a loose interpretation to say that Nietzsche claimed observation was invention. Though he did want us to do what we already do, just consciously and deliberately. And he said to create value. Then there is the problem of linking these tenuous facts possibilities...And I'm drunk. I want to argue that observation is necessarily invention. And thus introduces an affect to an event.