Not that it matters from a practical perspective. Once the last stars have gone cold, that's pretty much as good a definition of "the end" as any other, and that will happen long before maximum entropy is reached.
There might not be a definite end state to the universe itself, but there are certainly some thresholds past which everything will become so boring that we may just as well consider them to be final.
[0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_far_future
With expansion, and the fact that there are objects in space without a practical gravitational bounds, does that imply a form of finality which may inhibit the QM interactions that took place during the initial 'Big Bang'? I've been of the understanding for some time now that the 'Big Bang' could not have happened without the vacuous void which was to exist preceding it, is my understanding incorrect?
Yes, cosmology is hard.
Still, I find it interesting. Recently a hypothesis was floating around that after the universe reaches maximum entropy this would somehow reproduce the conditions where a quantum fluctuation could produce another universe. It's irrational on several levels to just postulate that without any concrete reason, and all the more astonishing since even if it were plausible, no living thing would be in existence at that point, and not even the building blocks of matter would "survive" such an event.
Even if the universe worked that way, there would be absolutely no reason to feel comforted by it.
I get that people are looking for cosmic harmony or maybe a sense of meaning when they postulate these cyclicalities, but in fact over superhuman time spans almost nothing in the universe is actually recurring. We're all just ephemeral patterns helplessly sliding down the big hill of entropy. Our universe is incompatible with the notion of permanence, even if it's introduced through the back door in the form of eternal cycles.