Before we get too deeply into the realm of macroscopic quantum mechanics, perhaps we should be sure the OP has been satisfied. I think the key idea in the uncertainty principle is one of limits on information-- we tend to think that reality encodes infinitely precise information about everything at all times, but quantum mechanics shows that this is not the case. Reality does not need infinitely precise information about everything, and indeed appears to be unable to handle such precise information. There is a limit to what we can know about reality, and what we need to know in order to understand what is going to happen. To choose a concrete example, the size of atoms is determined by this lack of complete information. In Newtonian physics with two bound charges, the square of the momentum of the electron is inversely proportional to the separation. But the uncertainty principle essentially says that in order to know that you have a smaller and smaller separation, what you know about the momentum must become increasingly unclear, and this uncertainty is inversely proportional to the separation. So Newton is telling us that the momentum can only rise inversely with the square root of the separation, but Heisenberg says that the very uncertainty in the momentum must rise inversely with the separation itself, so the uncertainty would eventually have to dwarf the momentum itself. That's impossible, so atoms may not be arbitrarily small. They can be no smaller than when the uncertainty in the electron momentum, from Heisenberg, is of the same order as the momentum itself, from Newton. That comes when p^2/m ~ e^2/r, where r ~ h/p, so substituting yields p ~ me^2/h, or r ~ h^2/me^2, and that's the Bohr radius of an atom in a nutshell.