It is then trivial to find philosophers who take one of those notions as a cornerstone of their philosophy and thus absolutely have a conceptual framework for the right questions.

We now have an inkling that this taxonomy of understanding may well be too limited. For one thing, the notion of a "beginning" might not actually have a concrete meaning. There may simply be no time before "time zero." Also, the universe may well come to a false "end" in a way which completely remixes the laws of physics and possibly remixes the very causal structure of the universe. The universe may well unfold in a series of such incomprehensible remixings in a way analogous to Roger Penrose's 5-way symmetrical tiling, where an infinity may be "covered" by a predetermined non-cyclic pattern which never repeats. That last one is something which our ancestors of 400 and 1000 years ago simply didn't have the "mental furnishing" to conceptualize.

Is not relevant to the end (or not) of the everything.

>>The universe may well unfold in a series of such incomprehensible remixings in a way analogous to Roger Penrose's 5-way symmetrical tiling, where an infinity may be "covered" by a predetermined non-cyclic pattern which never repeats.

Is usefully distinct from an un-ending universe for philosophic purposes... how?

Because the phase change boundaries may be utterly impassable and the other side incomprehensible to beings such as ourselves, but the universe itself goes on. So it's quite distinct from an un-ending universe.

I hope you don't upset the operator and have the simulator suspended with this bickering about what it is. :)

Again I'm not saying Nihilism is "good" I'm just saying it doesn't necessarily lead to one set of morals, and what ever you allow it to lead you to can infact be almost congruent with Abraham or Quetzalcoatl or whatever.