an attempt to determine the position of a particle changes the determinabiity of the momentum of the particle (in some kind of inverse proportion) and vice versa

Within my understanding, this view comes closer to the truth than the other; however everything surrounding this matter is conceptually problematic. I think, however, that the following is applicable:

If you study the mathematical relationships between position and momentum at the quantum level, you will find that the relationship between their wave functions is exactly a Fourier transform. Uncertainty is inherent in Fourier transforms by definition. If a signal has an exact frequency, then its time of occurrence is indeterminate, and vice versa. A signal that occurs within a limited time interval has a spectrum of frequencies of nonzero width, and thus cannot be said to have "a" frequency. It is impossible for a signal to have both an exact time of occurrence and an exact frequency, by definition of the terms "time of occurrence" and "frequency". This uncertainty is not an outgrowth of inaccurate measurements but the very definitions of the quantities. However, if observational circumstances are such that the shortest time interval of interest and the narrowest frequency interval of interest are both larger than some product, we can speak of the signal as having, for practical purposes, both a definite frequency and a definite time of occurrence.

These concepts presumably apply to quantum mechanics. There are difficulties, however, when trying to do so, as follows: If we accept the Fourier transform as the correct description of position and momentum, then the correct statement concerning position and momentum is that a particle in general has neither, but only its wave function. Thus, as in the case of the signal described above, the particle is correctly described by, and only by, its wave function. But here is where things get difficult: we have no way of observing the wave function directly, but are limited to observing its observable consequences. The apparatus with which we observe these consequences is likewise composed of wave functions, none of which we can directly observe. It would appear that the uncertainty principle (in the sense that the outcome of a quantum process cannot in general be predicted, but that the probability of possible outcomes can be, based on the square of the wave function) must have something to do with this observational constraint. Not the erratic path of the particle, but the inherent limits imposed by the order of things, is the source of our problem and limits us to dealing in probabilities. If this is the correct understanding, then an attendant conclusion seems to be that at the quantum level, no experiment can be truly replicated. Thus in, for example, the double slit experiment, every time the experiment is done, the screen is in a different quantum state; and there is no way to guarantee that its state, as relates to that of the particle in any one iteration of the experiment, will exactly match the way the states relate in a different iteration, and that remains true even at absolute zero of temperature. If that is so, it is sufficient to account for the fact that quantum experiments produce outcomes that do not duplicate themselves reliably.