Alright. I've thought about these last three replies and decided to take a look at my argument in a broader perspective.
I realized that it is very difficult for me to say whether or not *anything* is innate or intrinsic to the universe. Not even time and gravity are necessarily intrinsic; I can imagine a universe of mass but no space, in which case everything would exist (technically) but time would not be proceeding. As well, in a universe in which all mass and energy is distributed perfectly, gravity would be uniform and practically unnoticable.
I thought I was taking my argument to the logical extreme (what an amusing term!) before but now I see the pointlesness of arguing whether something (even a purely psychological concept) is immanent.
Turns out, every *thing* in the universe is contingent on some other *thing*. If you remove thing one, thing two goes poof. So whether or not we removed brains from the universe, value is going to exist as a measurement if nothing else in a possibility space, which seems far out but is the only way I can really synthesize these arguments. Even if value would disappear if there were no brains to apply it, we don't have to worry about that because we all have brains (forgive me if I make broad assumptions).
I guess, then, it is not possible to prove an argument if the proof relies on positing a universe with some objects in non-existence (without math, anyway).