A better name, to some extent at least, is Heisenberg’s indeterminacy principle, because otherwise people confuse it with the uncertainties of measurement.
And I know people have already touched upon this, but I think the OP would benefit from examining the assumptions in their statements, such as in:
“determine the precise instant the object reaches a predetermined point”
And see what that leads to.
What do you mean by precise? If it’s a non-quantum mechanic indivisible instant, that cannot be achieved in practice. You always have a timing device with some level of uncertainty. We can currently make that uncertainty mindbogglingly small, but there’s always an end to the significant figures on the read out. If you’re measuring in nanoseconds, you could be more precise by measuring in picoseconds and so on.
And the same applies to “point”.
Now roughly speaking, the indeterminacy principle says that if I measure the position of, let’s say a baseball, with an accuracy of one micrometer, a small fraction of the diameter of a human hair, there is a fundamental limit to how accurately I can measure its momentum. So even if the baseball is just sitting on my experiment table, obviously not moving, there’s a range of possible speeds it could have.
So what is that range of momentums the baseball could have? It’s ridiculously small. We’re talking 0.0000000000and-then-more-zeros-lifetime-of-the-universe-to-move-an-inch type momentums.
But if you move to the level of atoms and subatomic particles, it starts to matter, and it becomes clear that it’s not just that we can’t measure these things, it’s that “particles” don’t actually have positions and momentums that are “precise”. Their fundamental natures are those of fuzzy wavepackets with all the weirdness that implies.